Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a delayed revision before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and directed the authority to condone the delay and decide the revision within three months of filing. The Court found that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy which must be availed before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Facts
The petitioner’s PDS licence was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur, on 24 April 2017. An appeal against this cancellation was dismissed by the District Magistrate on 27 February 2018. The petitioner then approached the High Court seeking quashing of both orders and restoration of the PDS licence to continue running the fair price shop. During the proceedings, the petitioner expressed his intention to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner but highlighted that the limitation period for filing the revision had lapsed, requiring the court’s intervention for delay condonation.
Issues
- Whether the writ petition against PDS licence cancellation is maintainable when an effective alternative statutory remedy is available.
- Whether the Divisional Commissioner can entertain a time-barred revision under the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016, read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued:
- The orders cancelling his PDS licence and dismissing his appeal were unsustainable and required judicial interference.
- He intended to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner, which is the appropriate forum under Section 32(vi) of the PDS Control Order.
- The delay in filing the revision should be condoned due to the circumstances, ensuring that the matter is decided on merits.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued:
- The petitioner has an effective and alternative statutory remedy by way of revision before the Divisional Commissioner.
- Since the petitioner failed to avail this remedy within the prescribed period, the writ petition should not be entertained.
- The petitioner should be directed to file the revision rather than seeking relief directly under writ jurisdiction.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined:
- Section 32(v) and (vi) of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016, which provides the statutory framework for appeals and revisions in PDS matters.
- The settled law that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when an alternative efficacious remedy is available unless there is a violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice.
- The application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to permit delay condonation to advance the cause of justice and to allow the matter to be adjudicated on merits.
Precedent Analysis
Although no specific precedents were cited in the judgment, it aligns with:
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks and State of UP v. Mohd. Nooh: on the principle of alternative remedy barring writ jurisdiction.
- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji: on liberal interpretation in condoning delays to advance substantive justice.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that:
- The petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Section 32(vi) to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner.
- Given the petitioner’s expressed willingness to pursue this remedy, the court would not adjudicate the writ on the merits.
- To ensure fair opportunity, the Divisional Commissioner should condone the delay and decide the revision on merits, ensuring procedural fairness.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court:
- Disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file a delayed revision within four weeks before the Divisional Commissioner.
- Directed the Divisional Commissioner to condone the delay and dispose of the revision within three months of its filing.
- Emphasised the principle that statutory remedies should be exhausted while ensuring justice through procedural flexibility.
Implications
- Reinforces the principle of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.
- Ensures procedural fairness in PDS disputes impacting livelihoods, particularly in rural and economically weaker sections.
- Clarifies that procedural delays should not defeat substantive justice if a party shows readiness to pursue the correct legal remedy.
Short Note on Relevant Legal Position
- Section 32(vi), Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016: Provides for revision before the Divisional Commissioner.
- Section 5, Limitation Act: Enables condonation of delay to ensure substantive justice.
- Aligns with Whirlpool and Anantnag v. Katiji principles on alternative remedies and delay condonation.
FAQs
1. Can a writ petition be filed directly against PDS licence cancellation orders?
No, if an alternative statutory remedy like revision is available, the writ should not ordinarily be entertained.
2. Can the Divisional Commissioner entertain a time-barred revision in PDS disputes?
Yes, the High Court can direct the authority to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to decide the case on merits.
3. How much time does the petitioner have to file the revision after this judgment?
The petitioner has four weeks to file the revision, which should then be decided within three months.
