Writ Petition Inadmissible When Alternative Statutory Remedy Exists Under Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order 2016

The petitioner, Niraj Kumar, challenged the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, in Supply Revision No. 164/2022

This revisional order had set aside a previous order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Araria, which had originally been decided in favor of the petitioner regarding the allotment of a Fair Price Shop license

The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Commissioner's order and a Writ of Mandamus to cancel the license of Respondent No. 7 and allot it to the petitioner

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, precluding the necessity of writ jurisdiction at this stage

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 and review records of orders passed by subordinate authorities (Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, etc.) either suo moto or upon representation, if it appears such 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 rival claims

Instead, it focused on the procedural availability of a statutory remedy. By examining Rule 32 (vii) of the Control Order, 2016, the Court observed that the petitioner is entitled to file a representation before the Principal Secretary to challenge the Revisional Authority's order

The Court reasoned that since an "alternative and effective remedy" exists within the statutory framework, the petitioner should exhaust that channel before seeking extraordinary relief under Article 226

The Court further ensured equity by directing the authority to consider the limitation period liberally, noting the petitioner had approached the High Court in a timely manner

The Principal Secretary was directed to pass a speaking order in accordance with the law, providing the petitioner with notice and an opportunity for a hearing, within a period of three months from the receipt of such representation

All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of