Writ petition disposed of in view of alternative remedy; delay directed to be condoned.

The petitioner, a fair price shop licensee, challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Biraul, suspending his fair price shop licence through Memo No. 511 dated 11 May 2007 and the subsequent cancellation order through Memo No. 194 dated 31 January 2008.

He sought quashing of both orders, restoration of his licence, and allotment of foodgrains to his shop.

During the hearing, the respondents contended that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

The petitioner stated that he intended to pursue that remedy but that the limitation period had expired, and requested permission to file the representation with condonation of delay.

1. Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a delayed representation/appeal and whether the concerned authority should condone the delay and decide the matter after hearing him.

The Court applied Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides that a person aggrieved by an order denying, renewing, or cancelling a fair price shop licence may appeal to the District Officer within thirty days of receiving the order; the appeal should, as far as practicable, be disposed of within sixty days.

Section 32(v) further permits the appellate authority, during the pendency of the appeal, to suspend the operation of the impugned order where necessary after providing a reasonable opportunity to the other party. The Court also considered the petitioner’s request for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Since the challenge concerned suspension and cancellation of a fair price shop licence, the Court held that the statutory appellate mechanism under Section 32 of the 2016 Control Order was directly applicable.

The availability of that efficacious alternative remedy warranted disposal of the writ petition without examining the merits of the suspension or cancellation orders.

However, recognizing that the petitioner’s proposed statutory challenge was time-barred, the Court directed that he be permitted to file the representation within one month and that the delay be condoned by the competent authority.

The authority was also required to provide an opportunity of hearing and decide the matter within the prescribed judicially directed period.

The petitioner was directed to file his representation before the concerned authority within one month from receipt of the judgment.

The authority was directed to condone the delay, afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and dispose of the representation within three months from its filing.

No immediate order was made quashing the suspension or cancellation of the licence or restoring the petitioner’s fair price shop.