Facts
The petitioner, a PDS license holder (License No. 01/1994), challenged the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banka, which cancelled his license.
Source reference: p. 1The petitioner subsequently filed a statutory appeal (Appeal No. 84 of 2011-12) before the Collector, Banka, which was dismissed on 07.08.2019 and communicated via memo on 26.10.2019.
Source reference: p. 1-2The petitioner moved the High Court seeking the quashing of both orders and the restoration of his license and supply.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative statutory remedy of revision provided under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
Source reference: p. 22. Whether the court should direct the condonation of delay for filing a revision petition after the expiration of the limitation period.
Source reference: p. 3Law Applied
The Court applied Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which stipulates that a revision may be filed before the Divisional Commissioner against an order passed in an appeal.
Source reference: p. 2The Court also referenced the principles of Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay in filing such statutory remedies.
Source reference: p. 3Reasoning
The Court noted the respondents' preliminary objection that a statutory alternative remedy of revision exists under Section 32(vi) of the Control Order, 2016.
Source reference: p. 2The Court reasoned that since an alternative remedy was specifically provided by the statute, the petitioner ought to exhaust that remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Source reference: p. 3To ensure the petitioner was not left remediless due to the passage of time during the pendency of the writ, the Court exercised its discretion to direct the revisional authority to condone the delay and decide the matter on its merits.
Source reference: p. 3Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition without interfering with the impugned orders, directing the petitioner to file a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner within one month.
The Court ordered that the delay in filing shall be condoned and the Divisional Commissioner must dispose of the revision within three months from the date of filing.
Source reference: p. 3All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
Ramdeo SinghvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in