Writ Petition Disposed With Liberty to Seek Alternative Remedy Under Rule 32(vii) of Bihar PDS Order

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 08-09-2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya, in Supply Revision Case No. 04 of 2022

The impugned order had set aside previous orders by the Sub Divisional Officer and the District Magistrate, resulting in a direction to issue a P.D.S. license to the private respondent (Respondent No. 6) based on an interpretation of reservation rules under the Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2016

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative and effective statutory remedy available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, precluding the immediate exercise of writ jurisdiction

Rule 32 (vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

This rule empowers the Principal Secretary or Secretary of the Department to call for records and review orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, or Licensing Authority, either suo moto or upon representation, if there is a claim of illegal exercise of power or failure to consider facts

The court declined to adjudicate the merits or demerits of the case at this stage.

Instead, it observed that Rule 32 (vii) provides a specific, alternative, and effective administrative remedy for the petitioner to challenge the Revisional/Appellate Authority's order.

The court reasoned that since the statutory framework allows for a representation before the Principal Secretary to address grievances regarding the legality and factual considerations of the lower authorities' orders, the petitioner should exhaust this remedy before seeking extraordinary relief through a writ.

The Court directed the authority to liberally construe the limitation period and mandated that the Principal Secretary pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law after providing the petitioner with a notice and an opportunity for a hearing within two months of receipt of the representation. All pending interlocutory applications were consequently disposed of.