Writ Petition Disposed of with Liberty to Exhaust Alternative Statutory Remedy Under Public Distribution System Control Order.

The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer holding license No. 17/2016, challenged Memo No. 403 dated 18.01.2019 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Supply Branch), Chapra Sadar.

This order cancelled the petitioner's license to distribute essential foodgrains.

The petitioner approached the High Court via a Writ petition seeking certiorari to quash the cancellation and mandamus to restore the license.

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ, noting that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory alternative remedies available under the state control orders.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative statutory remedies available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the court should condone the delay in filing an appeal/representation due to the expiration of the limitation period during the pendency of the writ.

Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides that any person aggrieved by the cancellation of a license may appeal to the District Officer within thirty days.

Section 32(v) allows the Appellate Authority to stay the effect of the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal.

Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or if the party is aggrieved by the appellate order.

Reference was also made to Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay.

The court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner—namely the quashing of a license cancellation—directly fall under the purview of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

The court noted that the petitioner has a robust alternative remedy through filing an appeal to the District Magistrate and a subsequent revision to the Divisional Commissioner.

While the petitioner expressed concern that the statutory limitation period for filing such an appeal had already lapsed, the court exercised its discretionary power to ensure the petitioner was not left without a remedy due to the time spent pursuing the writ petition.

By directing the authority to condone the delay, the court prioritized the exhaustion of statutory machinery over invoking its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

The court directed the petitioner to file a representation (appeal) within one month from the date of the order, and the respondent authority was directed to condone the delay and dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of receipt.