“Taking into consideration that the petitioner has an alternative remedy for filing a revision, the writ petition is disposed of.”
Court’s Decision:
The Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition filed against the cancellation of the petitioner’s PDS license, declining to directly interfere with the cancellation orders and the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal by the District Magistrate. The Court directed the petitioner to file a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks from receipt of the order, despite the lapse of limitation, and ordered that the Divisional Commissioner shall condone the delay and decide the revision on merits within three months.
Facts:
The petitioner approached the Patna High Court challenging:
- The show cause notice dated 22.09.2014,
- The order of cancellation of PDS License No. 18TR/2007 dated 15.11.2014 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishanganj, and
- The dismissal of PDS Appeal Case No. 05 of 2015 on 20.06.2017 by the District Magistrate, Kishanganj.
The petitioner sought restoration of his PDS license and the supply chain associated with it.
The respondents pointed out that under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, a revision lies before the Divisional Commissioner if an appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or if the appeal is decided against the aggrieved party.
The petitioner admitted that although he intended to file a revision, the limitation period for filing the revision had expired and hence sought the High Court’s intervention to direct the Divisional Commissioner to entertain the revision despite the delay.
Issues:
- Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of revision under the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, 2016.
- Whether the Divisional Commissioner could be directed to condone the delay in filing the revision and decide the revision on merits.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that his PDS license was wrongly cancelled, and the dismissal of his statutory appeal by the District Magistrate was illegal. He submitted that he wished to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner but the period for filing the revision had lapsed. The petitioner requested the High Court to direct the Divisional Commissioner to entertain the delayed revision petition and to condone the delay, enabling him to pursue the statutory remedy on merits.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The State respondents opposed the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, 2016 explicitly provided for a revision remedy under Section 32(vi) before the Divisional Commissioner against orders in appeal, and that the petitioner had failed to exhaust this alternative statutory remedy. They argued that the High Court should not entertain the writ petition directly under Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy was available.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court considered:
- Section 32(v) and 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provide for:
- Suspension of the impugned order during pendency of the appeal, and
- Filing of a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if an appeal is dismissed or not disposed of within sixty days, with the revision to be disposed of within two months.
The Court examined the position of law regarding alternative statutory remedies and the jurisdiction under Article 226, reiterating that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy generally bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction unless there is a demonstrated lack of efficacious remedy.
Precedent Analysis:
While the judgment does not cite case law explicitly, it is consistent with the principle of alternative remedy under Article 226 jurisprudence, wherein:
- Writ jurisdiction is discretionary,
- It should not be exercised when a statutory alternative remedy is available unless there are exceptional circumstances like a breach of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction.
This aligns with precedents such as:
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh (1958) (alternative remedy not a bar if order is without jurisdiction),
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998) (alternative remedy can be bypassed in cases of violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice).
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court reasoned that since the petitioner had an effective alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Divisional Commissioner, the High Court should not interfere directly with the cancellation orders. However, recognizing that the limitation for filing the revision had lapsed, the Court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to protect the petitioner’s right to statutory remedy by directing the Divisional Commissioner to condone the delay and decide the revision on merits within three months from the date of its filing.
Conclusion:
The Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a revision petition within four weeks before the Divisional Commissioner, who shall condone the delay and dispose of the revision within three months from the date of filing. All interlocutory applications also stood disposed of.
Implications:
- Reinforces the principle of alternative statutory remedy and High Court’s reluctance to intervene under Article 226 when such remedy exists.
- Allows litigants whose limitation has expired to seek directions for condonation of delay where statutory remedies are essential to be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction.
- Guides PDS licensees in Bihar on the correct appellate and revisional hierarchy under the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, ensuring procedural compliance while preserving substantive rights.
Brief Note on Cases Referred:
The judgment did not explicitly cite specific case precedents but aligned with principles laid down in:
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh (1958) (exception to alternative remedy),
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998) (circumstances to bypass alternative remedy),
- General Article 226 principles regarding alternative remedy and equitable relief in the interests of justice.
These principles provided the implicit jurisprudential foundation for the High Court’s approach in disposing of the writ petition while safeguarding the petitioner’s right to statutory revision despite delay.
FAQs:
- What did the Patna High Court decide regarding the PDS license cancellation challenge?
The Court refused to quash the cancellation directly, directing the petitioner to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks, with a further directive to condone the delay and decide the revision within three months. - Can a delayed revision petition be entertained under the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, 2016?
Yes, while the Order does not explicitly address delay condonation, the High Court can direct the Divisional Commissioner to condone the delay under equitable jurisdiction to preserve the statutory remedy. - Does the availability of an alternative statutory remedy bar filing a writ petition under Article 226?Generally, yes. High Courts typically decline to exercise writ jurisdiction if an effective alternative statutory remedy exists unless there are exceptional circumstances like jurisdictional errors or violations of natural justice.
