Facts
The petitioner held a Public Distribution System (PDS) license (No. 01/0/1996), which was cancelled by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Daudnagar, on 08.07.2015
Source reference: p. 1-2The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the cancellation before the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, in Supply Appeal No. 35 of 2017 (dismissed on 15.09.2018) and subsequently before the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, in Supply Revision Case No. 406/2018 (dismissed on 08.06.2023)
Source reference: p. 1-2The petitioner filed the current writ petition seeking to set aside these orders and restore the license
Source reference: p. 1Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, to challenge the orders of the licensing, appellate, and revisional authorities
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5Law Applied
The court primarily applied Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3This rule empowers the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Department to call for records and review orders passed by subordinate authorities—including the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, or SDO—if such authorities exceeded their powers, exercised powers illegally without considering facts, or failed to exercise their powers
Source reference: p. 2-3, para. 3Reasoning
Without delving into the merits of the cancellation, the Court observed that the petitioner possesses an "alternative and effective remedy" under Rule 32(vii) of the 2016 Order
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5Since the law specifically provides a mechanism for the Principal Secretary to review decisions of the lower authorities, judicial intervention via a writ petition is premature at this stage
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5The Court linked the statutory provision to the facts by granting the petitioner liberty to file a representation, while directing the authority to consider the time spent in litigation when assessing the limitation period
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition without granting the primary relief, instead directing the petitioner to file a representation before the Principal Secretary within one month
The Principal Secretary is directed to pass a speaking order in accordance with the law within three months, ensuring the petitioner is given notice and an opportunity for a hearing. Any delay in filing the representation is to be construed liberally by the authority as the petitioner was pursuing the matter before the High Court
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7; p. 3-4, para. 6Original Court PDF
Naresh Chandra PrasadvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in