Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, despite delay, directing the authority to condone the delay and decide the revision within three months from filing. The Court held that the petitioner had an effective alternative statutory remedy, making the writ petition not maintainable at this stage.
Facts
The petitioner’s PDS licence was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 31 January 2012, which was affirmed in appeal by the SDO on 23 July 2013, and further upheld by the District Magistrate in PDS Appeal Case No. 31/2014 on 9 January 2018. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging these orders, seeking restoration of his PDS licence, contending that the cancellation was illegal. During arguments, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner intended to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner, but the limitation for filing had lapsed, necessitating intervention for delay condonation.
Issues
- Whether the writ petition challenging cancellation of a PDS licence is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of revision is available under the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016.
- Whether the Divisional Commissioner can be directed to condone the delay in filing the revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that:
- The PDS licence was wrongly cancelled, and the orders of the authorities below were unsustainable.
- Although the alternative remedy of revision under the PDS Control Order existed, the statutory period to file it had lapsed.
- The petitioner intended to file the revision, seeking a direction to the Divisional Commissioner to entertain the revision on merits by condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents argued that:
- The petitioner had an effective alternative statutory remedy of revision under Section 32(vi) of the PDS Control Order, 2016.
- The writ petition should not be entertained in view of the availability of the alternative statutory remedy.
- The limitation for filing the revision had lapsed due to the petitioner’s inaction.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed:
- Section 32(v) and (vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides for revision before the Divisional Commissioner if an appeal is not disposed of within 60 days.
- The settled principle that where an effective alternative remedy is available, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked.
- The scope under Section 5 of the Limitation Act allowing delay to be condoned if sufficient cause is shown.
Precedent Analysis
Although the judgment did not explicitly refer to precedents, the following principles are embedded:
- Alternative remedies bar writ jurisdiction unless there is a breach of fundamental rights or a case of manifest injustice (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, State of UP v. Mohd. Nooh).
- Delay in filing statutory remedies can be condoned if justified, ensuring justice in procedural matters (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji).
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found:
- The petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy by way of revision before the Divisional Commissioner.
- The petitioner had expressed a willingness to file the revision but was delayed due to limitation constraints.
- Interests of justice would be served by allowing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy with delay condonation.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court:
- Disposed of the writ petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks.
- Directed the Divisional Commissioner to condone the delay in filing and decide the revision on merits within three months from the date of filing.
Implications
- Reinforces the principle that statutory remedies should be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction.
- Clarifies that procedural delays can be condoned to ensure substantive justice in PDS and other service-related disputes
- Ensures that individuals in rural and economically weaker sections get a fair opportunity to challenge adverse administrative orders affecting livelihood.
Short Note on Relevant Legal Position
- Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016 Section 32(vi): Provides revision before the Divisional Commissioner if appeals are disposed or delayed.
- Section 5, Limitation Act: Allows delay to be condoned for sufficient cause.
- Whirlpool Corporation, Anantnag v. Katiji: Emphasise exhaustion of remedies and liberal delay condonation.
FAQs
1. Can a writ petition be filed directly against PDS licence cancellation?
No, if an alternative remedy of revision is available, the writ should not ordinarily be entertained.
2. Is it possible to condone delay in filing a revision under the PDS Control Order?
Yes, the High Court can direct the Divisional Commissioner to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
3. How soon must the revision be decided once filed after delay condonation?
The court directed the revision to be decided within three months from the date of filing.
