Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by a ration shop license holder whose license under the Public Distribution System (PDS) had been cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer and later confirmed by the District Magistrate. The Court did not interfere with the merits of the cancellation order but allowed the petitioner to file a revision under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. It directed the Divisional Commissioner to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and decide the revision on merits within three months of its filing.
“Taking into consideration that the petitioner has an alternative remedy for filing a revision, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction… The delay in filing the revision shall be condoned.”
Facts
The petitioner operated a fair price shop under the Bihar Public Distribution System. His license was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Biraul via order dated 12 August 2014. This cancellation was subsequently confirmed by the District Magistrate, Darbhanga on 17 August 2016 in PDS Case No. 55/2014. Challenging this, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition in 2017, seeking to set aside the cancellation orders (Annexures 4 and 5).
During the proceedings, the State Government pointed out that the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, 2016 provides a clear statutory remedy of filing a revision before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 32(vi), which had not been exhausted. The petitioner admitted that he intended to file such a revision but missed the statutory time limit.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner could invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy?
- Whether the Divisional Commissioner could condone the delay in filing the revision?
- What directions should be issued to ensure adjudication of the petitioner’s grievance?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the cancellation of his PDS license was arbitrary and affected his livelihood. He acknowledged that he had a statutory remedy under Section 32(vi) of the 2016 Control Order but stated that the period of limitation had expired. He requested the Court to direct the Divisional Commissioner to accept his revision petition and condone the delay in filing, by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Respondents’ Arguments
The State, represented by learned counsel, contended that Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, 2016 provided a clear remedy of revision. It was submitted that since the petitioner had failed to avail this alternative remedy, the writ petition was not maintainable. However, it was fairly conceded that Section 32(vi) permits condonation of delay and the Divisional Commissioner is competent to consider the revision if filed with appropriate grounds for delay.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed Section 32(v) and 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which lays down:
- The appellate authority may stay operation of orders under appeal.
- If an appeal is not disposed of within 60 days or a party is aggrieved by such an order, a revision may be filed before the Divisional Commissioner, who must dispose of it within two months.
The Court recognized that while a writ petition may not be maintainable when alternative remedies exist, exceptions arise where the remedy is either illusory or unavailable due to lapse of limitation, provided the authority has the power to condone such delay.
Further, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, delay in preferring such revisions can be condoned upon sufficient cause being shown. The Court invoked this principle to balance the rule of alternate remedy with substantive justice.
Precedent Analysis
Although no specific precedent was cited in the order, the judgment aligns with settled constitutional law principles from Supreme Court rulings such as:
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, (1998) 8 SCC 1: Writ jurisdiction can still be exercised despite alternative remedies in cases of breach of fundamental rights or failure of natural justice.
- State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499: Held that where statutory remedies are available with provision for condonation of delay, courts should ordinarily refrain from entertaining writ petitions.
The Court adopted these well-settled doctrines implicitly by recognizing the existence of statutory remedy and allowing delay condonation to preserve access to justice.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the petitioner admittedly had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 32(vi) and should have exhausted that before invoking writ jurisdiction. However, given the lapse of time and the petitioner’s willingness to pursue the revision, the Court found it just and proper to permit the petitioner to now avail that remedy with liberty to seek condonation of delay.
“The delay in filing the revision shall be condoned by the Divisional Commissioner… and the authority shall dispose of the revision within three months.”
Conclusion
The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a revision petition within four weeks before the Divisional Commissioner, who shall condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and dispose of the revision on merits within three months. All interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
Implications
This judgment affirms that the existence of alternative remedies does not per se preclude judicial intervention, especially where procedural relief (like condonation of delay) is possible. It reaffirms access to justice even in cases where statutory time limits have lapsed, provided the remedy is otherwise available and efficacious. It encourages litigants to explore statutory forums first and courts to show leniency where a party is otherwise entitled to substantive relief.
FAQs
1. Can a revision be filed under the Bihar PDS Control Order after limitation has lapsed?
Yes, under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, 2016 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Divisional Commissioner can condone delay on sufficient cause being shown.
2. Is a writ petition maintainable when alternative statutory remedies exist?
Generally, no. Courts discourage writ petitions where statutory remedies are available, unless there’s a failure of justice, violation of fundamental rights, or remedy has become illusory.
3. What is the timeline for the Divisional Commissioner to decide a revision?
The Bihar Control Order mandates disposal of revision within two months of its filing. In this case, the Court directed disposal within three months.
Referred Cases and Their Relevance
- No explicit citations in the order, but the Court’s reasoning aligns with:
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks – on writs despite alternate remedy.
- State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. – on condonation of delay in statutory remedies.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) – on liberal approach to delay condonation.
