Writ Petition Inadmissible Due to Availability of Alternative Remedy Under Section 32(vii) of Bihar TPDS Order 2016

The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) licensee (License no. 47/2007) in Purnea, challenged three successive administrative orders: the cancellation of his license by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 24.03.2014; the dismissal of his appeal by the Collector, Purnea, on 08.06.2018; and the affirmation of these orders by the Commissioner, Purnea Division, in a revision petition on 25.10.2022.

The petitioner sought a writ to quash these orders via the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction.

During the hearing, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative remedy provided under Section 32 (vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

The Court primarily applied Section 32 (vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which empowers the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Department to review records and pass appropriate orders if a subordinate authority (Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, or Licensing Authority) has exercised powers not entrusted to them, acted illegally without considering facts, or failed to use their powers.

The Court observed that while the petitioner sought to invoke writ jurisdiction to set aside the cancellation and subsequent appellate/revisional orders, the statutory framework governing PDS in Bihar provides a specific administrative remedy.

Under Section 32 (vii) of the 2016 Control Order, the petitioner has the right to file a representation before the Principal Secretary against the orders of the Commissioner.

Without delving into the merits or demerits of the petitioner’s claims, the Court determined that the existence of this "alternative remedy" necessitated the exhaustion of statutory channels before the High Court would intervene under Article 226.

Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to utilize this statutory forum to seek relief.

The Court ordered that any delay in filing such representation be condoned and mandated the authority to dispose of the matter within three months after providing all concerned parties with a notice and an opportunity for a hearing.

All pending interlocutory applications were likewise disposed of.