Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a fair price shop licence under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The Court directed the petitioner to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks and instructed that the delay in filing the revision be condoned. The Court held: “Taking into consideration that the petitioner has an alternative remedy for filing a revision, the writ petition is disposed of.” The Divisional Commissioner was further directed to decide the revision within three months from its filing.
Facts
The petitioner’s licence to operate a fair price shop was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, and this order was subsequently affirmed by the District Magistrate in an appellate order dated 06.06.2017. The cancellation was reportedly based on allegations of black-marketing. Aggrieved by the decision and having not availed the statutory revision under the Bihar TPDS (Control) Order, 2016 in time, the petitioner approached the High Court under its writ jurisdiction seeking quashing of the appellate order and restoration of his licence.
At the hearing, the petitioner submitted that he intended to file a revision petition under Clause 32(vi) of the Control Order before the Divisional Commissioner but had failed to do so within the prescribed limitation period. He therefore prayed for a direction allowing him to file a belated revision, with the delay being condoned.
Issues
- Whether a writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy in the form of revision?
- Whether the delay in filing the revision under Clause 32(vi) of the Bihar TPDS (Control) Order, 2016 could be condoned?
- What directions could the High Court issue to safeguard the petitioner’s right to avail the statutory remedy?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that although he had a statutory remedy under Clause 32(vi) of the Bihar TPDS (Control) Order, 2016 to file a revision against the order of the District Magistrate, the limitation for doing so had expired. He therefore approached the High Court seeking restoration of his licence, and, alternatively, prayed that the Divisional Commissioner be directed to condone the delay and entertain his revision petition in accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The petitioner emphasized that the merits of his case were strong, and that the cancellation of his licence was unjustified, having been ordered solely on the unverified charge of black-marketing.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the writ petition on the ground that an efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under the Bihar TPDS (Control) Order, 2016. Citing Clauses 32(v) and (vi), the State argued that the petitioner had failed to exercise this remedy in time and that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the statutory hierarchy of forums.
However, the State did not object to the petitioner being allowed to file a delayed revision, subject to the Divisional Commissioner’s discretion to condone delay as per the Limitation Act.
Analysis of the Law
Clause 32 of the Bihar TPDS (Control) Order, 2016 governs the appellate and revisional framework concerning fair price shop licences. Specifically:
- Clause 32(v) empowers the appellate authority to stay the impugned order pending appeal.
- Clause 32(vi) permits a revision to be filed before the Divisional Commissioner if an appeal is not decided within 60 days or if there is a grievance against the appellate order.
Although the Order is silent on delay condonation, the High Court noted that the provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 5, can be invoked in appropriate cases unless expressly excluded by the statute. The Court thus found it appropriate to allow the revision with condonation of delay.
Precedent Analysis
No specific judicial precedents were cited or relied upon in this brief oral judgment. However, the ruling implicitly follows settled principles of administrative law, including:
- The principle of alternative remedy: A writ is not maintainable where a statutory alternative exists unless exceptional circumstances are shown.
- Delay condonation: Where statutes are silent, courts may invoke the Limitation Act’s provisions to prevent miscarriage of justice and ensure access to remedies.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had a statutory remedy available and that he failed to avail it in time. However, considering that the cancellation of a livelihood licence has civil consequences, and that the delay was not excessive or malafide, the Court took a pragmatic view and allowed the petitioner to pursue the revision despite delay.
The Court also recognized that the Divisional Commissioner is competent to condone the delay and should adjudicate the revision on merits. Thus, rather than quashing the cancellation outright, the Court preserved the petitioner’s right to statutory remedy.
Conclusion
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The petitioner may file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks.
- The Divisional Commissioner shall condone the delay in filing the revision.
- The revision shall be disposed of on merits within three months of its filing.
All pending interlocutory applications were also deemed disposed of.
Implications
This ruling highlights the High Court’s equitable approach in ensuring that statutory remedies are not rendered illusory due to procedural delay. It offers a valuable precedent for litigants seeking to revive lapsed remedies under beneficial legislation. Additionally, it reaffirms that livelihood-related licences deserve liberal interpretation and access to review mechanisms.
FAQs
1. Can delay in filing a revision under Bihar TPDS Control Order, 2016 be condoned?
Yes. The Patna High Court held that delay in filing a revision under Clause 32(vi) can be condoned by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. Is a writ petition maintainable if a revision remedy is available but time-barred?
Generally, no. However, the Court may permit revival of the revision route and dispose of the writ petition accordingly, as done in this case.
3. What is the remedy against cancellation of a fair price shop licence in Bihar?
An aggrieved party may file an appeal before the District Magistrate and a revision before the Divisional Commissioner under Clause 32 of the TPDS Control Order, 2016.