Writ petition disposed of, granting liberty to challenge PDS orders through Rule 32(vii) representation.

The petitioner, holder of PDS licence No. 7/93, challenged the communication dated 14 November 2006 cancelling his licence on the ground that he had not deposited the renewal fee for 1996–1999.

He also challenged the District Magistrate’s order dated 7 May 2009 in PDS Case No. 1 PDS/2006–07, which declined to entertain his case and did not renew the licence, and the Commissioner’s revisional order dated 2 July 2019 in PDS Revision Case No. 29/2019, which affirmed the District Magistrate’s decision on the ground of delay.

The petitioner sought restoration and renewal of his licence, contending that he had attempted to deposit the requisite renewal fee and that the licence had not been renewed without fault on his part.

1. Whether the writ petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner’s PDS licence and the subsequent orders could be entertained when an alternative remedy was available under Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to challenge the impugned orders by filing a representation before the Principal Secretary under Rule 32(vii).

3. Whether the representation, if delayed, should be considered notwithstanding the lapse of time, and whether the petitioner was entitled to notice and an opportunity of hearing.

The Court applied Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which empowers the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the department to call for records, suo motu or on representation, concerning orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, licensing authority, or Sub-Divisional Officer.

The power may be exercised where the subordinate authority acted without jurisdiction, exercised its powers illegally without considering the facts, or failed to exercise its powers; the Principal Secretary may thereafter pass an appropriate order.

The Court also applied the principle that the High Court may decline to exercise writ jurisdiction where an effective alternative statutory remedy is available.

Any decision affecting the petitioner’s licence was required to be made after notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Without examining the merits of the petitioner’s claim regarding payment of renewal fees, cancellation of the licence, or the alleged delay, the Court found that Rule 32(vii) provided an alternative and effective remedy before the Principal Secretary.

Since the challenged orders had been passed by authorities covered by Rule 32(vii), the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue that statutory remedy instead of obtaining adjudication of the merits in the writ proceedings.

Recognising that the petitioner had approached the High Court within time, the Court directed that any delay in filing the representation be construed liberally.

It further safeguarded procedural fairness by directing that the petitioner be given notice and an opportunity of hearing before any decision was taken.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation before the Principal Secretary under Rule 32(vii) challenging the revisional/appellate order and the order cancelling his licence within one month from receipt of the judgment.

The Principal Secretary was directed to decide the representation, strictly in accordance with law, within three months of its filing; any delay was to be liberally construed.

The petitioner was to be afforded notice and an opportunity of hearing, and the final order was to be communicated to him.