Writ Petition Disposed of with Liberty to Seek Alternative Remedy Under Rule 32(vii) of Control Order

The petitioners, legal heirs of Late Shiv Bhuiyan, filed a writ petition challenging three successive orders: the cancellation of their P.D.S. License (No. 14/M/93) by the Sub Divisional Officer on 18/06/2021, the dismissal of their appeal by the Additional Collector on 03/12/2022, and the dismissal of their revision by the Divisional Commissioner on 08/06/2023.

The petitioners sought the quashing of these orders on the grounds that they were passed based on erroneous considerations of fact and law.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy is available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the court should direct the petitioners to approach the departmental head for final administrative redressal before exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

The Court applied Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which empowers the Principal Secretary or Secretary of the Department to call for records and review orders passed by subordinate authorities (Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, or Licensing Authority).

This rule allows the Secretary to intervene if the subordinate authority exercised powers not entrusted to them, acted illegally without considering facts, or failed to use their powers.

The Court did not adjudicate upon the merits or demerits of the License cancellation.

Upon reviewing Rule 32(vii) of the Control Order, 2016, the Court observed that the Principal Secretary has the statutory authority to act as a quasi-judicial oversight body to rectify illegalities or factual errors in the orders passed by the lower authorities.

Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioners must exhaust this effective alternative remedy before the High Court can intervene under Article 226.

To ensure justice, the Court directed that the limitation period for such representation be construed liberally since the petitioners had been pursuing the matter in the High Court within the prescribed time.

The Principal Secretary is directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law within three months of receipt of the representation, after providing the petitioners with a notice and an opportunity for a hearing. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.