Writ Petition Disposed With Liberty to Seek Alternative Remedy Before Principal Secretary Under Rule 32(vii).

The petitioner, a P.D.S. shop licensee (License No. 21/2007), challenged the cancellation of his license by the S.D.O., Gopalganj (dated 30.05.2015)

This cancellation was subsequently upheld by the District Magistrate in an appeal (dated 11.09.2015) and by the Commissioner, Saran, in a revision (dated 29.10.2018)

The petitioner contended that the cancellation violated the principles of natural justice as the inquiry report was never provided to him, and his written arguments were ignored by the Revisional Authority

He approached the High Court seeking certiorari to quash these orders and a direction to restore his license

Whether the petitioner has an alternative and effective statutory remedy available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, to challenge the concurrent findings of the lower authorities.

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

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

The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the cancellation or the alleged violation of natural justice. Instead, it focused on the procedural availability of a statutory remedy.

The Court observed that Rule 32 (vii) provides a specific mechanism for the petitioner to file a representation before the Principal Secretary against the orders of the Revisional and Appellate Authorities

By invoking this rule, the petitioner can seek a review of the "merits or demerits" and the legality of the cancellation process

Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner should exhaust this administrative remedy before seeking judicial intervention through a writ petition

The Court directed the Principal Secretary to liberally construe the limitation period since the petitioner had been pursuing the matter in the High Court

The Principal Secretary must pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law within three months of receiving the representation, ensuring the petitioner is given a notice and a fair hearing