Writ Petition Premised on Alternative Remedy Disposed with Direction to File Statutory Revision Before Divisional Commissioner

The petitioner, a P.D.S. (Public Distribution System) licensee for Palanwa Jagdhar Panchayat, challenged the order dated 15/07/2023 (Memo No. 1146) issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Raxaul, which cancelled her license.

The petitioner moved the High Court seeking the quashing of the cancellation order and the underlying proceedings in P.D.S. Appeal Case No. 88/2019, contending they were illegal and without jurisdiction.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of alternative statutory remedies.

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

2. Whether the petitioner can be granted liberty to approach the revisional authority despite the expiry of the limitation period.

Section 32(iii) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] provides that any person aggrieved by the cancellation of a license may appeal to the District Officer within thirty days.

Section 32(vi) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] stipulates that if an appeal is not disposed of within sixty days, or if a party is aggrieved by the appellate order, a revision may be filed before the Divisional Commissioner.

The court referenced principles under Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay for filing statutory applications.

The Court observed that the petitioner had sought to bypass the statutory framework established by the Control Order, 2016.

The Court noted a procedural conflict: since the District Magistrate headed the Selection Committee that cancelled the license, he could not legally review his own order in an appellate capacity.

The Court determined that the appropriate alternative remedy for the petitioner was to approach the Divisional Commissioner via a revision/application.

Recognizing that the limitation period for such a remedy had lapsed while the petitioner was pursuing the writ, the Court found it equitable to allow the petitioner to file a fresh application, directing the authority to condone the delay in the interest of justice.

The petitioner was directed to file a proper application before the Divisional Commissioner or the concerned authority within one month from the receipt of the order.

The Court ordered that the delay in filing such an application shall be condoned and that the authority must dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of filing.

All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.