Writ relief was declined because a statutory appeal against fair-price shop licence cancellation was available.

The petitioner challenged the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order cancelling his Fair Price Shop licence, seeking restoration of the licence and allotment to his shop

The writ petition had been dismissed as withdrawn in 2022, but that order was recalled on review in 2026 and the petition revived for consideration on merits

On revival, the respondents objected that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under Clause 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

1. Whether the petitioner’s writ petition challenging cancellation of his Fair Price Shop licence should be entertained despite the alternative remedies under Clause 32 of the 2016 Control Order

2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue a representation before the concerned authority, with delay condoned and a time-bound decision directed

Clause 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides an appeal to the District Officer against denial, non-renewal, or cancellation of a Fair Price Shop licence, ordinarily to be filed within thirty days of receipt of the order; the appeal is to be disposed of, as far as practicable, within sixty days

Clause 32(v) permits the appellate authority to stay the effect of the challenged order pending appeal, while Clause 32(vi) provides for revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not decided within sixty days or against the appellate order

The judgment identifies the availability of this alternative remedy as the basis for disposing of the writ petition; it cites no precedent.

The Court noted that the relief sought concerned cancellation of the petitioner’s licence and concluded that Clause 32 provided an alternative remedy

On that basis, it declined to grant the requested writ relief and instead directed the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned authority. The Court further directed that delay in filing be condoned and that the representation be decided within three months of filing.

It directed the petitioner to file a representation within four weeks of receiving the order, required the authority to condone delay and decide the matter within three months of filing, and disposed of any pending interlocutory applications