Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court declined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Buxar, upholding the cancellation of the petitioner’s Public Distribution System (PDS) dealership license. However, the Court directed that the petitioner be permitted to file a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, despite the delay. The Court observed that as per Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, a revision can be filed against the appellate order of the District Magistrate, and further ordered:
“The delay in filing the revision shall be condoned by the Divisional Commissioner and the authority shall dispose of the revision within three months from the date of filing of the revision petition.”
Facts
The petitioner’s dealership license under the Public Distribution System was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Buxar on 06.05.2015. An appeal was filed before the District Magistrate in Appeal Case No. 65/2015, which was dismissed by order dated 24.03.2017. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging both the cancellation order and the appellate order, seeking reinstatement of the license.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction without exhausting the alternative remedy of revision under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
- Whether the limitation for filing a revision under Section 32(vi) can be condoned in light of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that although the appellate order of the District Magistrate was passed in 2017, the petitioner still desires to avail the remedy of revision. However, due to the lapse of the limitation period, the petitioner sought a direction from the Court to instruct the Divisional Commissioner to entertain the revision petition by condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had not availed the alternative statutory remedy under Section 32(vi) of the 2016 Control Order, which provides for filing a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within 60 days or if the order of the appellate authority is challenged. It was emphasized that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked prematurely.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed Section 32(v) and (vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which outlines the statutory scheme for appeal and revision. Specifically, Section 32(vi) enables a party to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appellate order is passed or delayed beyond 60 days. Importantly, the Court noted that this provision does not bar filing a revision after the limitation period if justified.
Precedent Analysis
Although the judgment did not explicitly cite any other precedents, it applied the established principle that availability of an alternative statutory remedy bars direct invocation of writ jurisdiction unless exceptional circumstances are shown. Additionally, it harmonized the Bihar Control Order with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, allowing delayed revision upon satisfaction of sufficient cause.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court refused to entertain the writ petition on merits due to the petitioner’s failure to exhaust the remedy of revision. However, acknowledging the petitioner’s submission that the delay was unintentional and considering the nature of the grievance (cancellation of a livelihood-related license), the Court took a lenient view and allowed the revision to be filed. The Court emphasized procedural fairness and directed expeditious disposal of the revision:
“The petitioner has an alternative remedy for filing a revision… 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 before the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks of receiving the Court’s order. The Divisional Commissioner has been directed to condone the delay and decide the revision petition on merits within three months.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory remedies. However, in matters affecting livelihood — such as cancellation of PDS licenses — courts may extend equitable relief by allowing delayed filings, provided statutory provisions permit revision and delay is justifiable. The decision reflects a balance between procedural discipline and substantive justice.
Case(s) Referred
Section 32(v) and 32(vi), Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016
These provisions were crucial in establishing that an appeal and subsequent revision are the appropriate remedies against the cancellation of PDS licenses. The Court relied upon these clauses to justify rejection of the writ petition and to direct that the delay in revision be condoned.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. Can a delayed revision be entertained under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016?
Yes. Section 32(vi) permits filing of revision and does not expressly bar delayed revisions. The Court also directed that the delay be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Q2. Is writ jurisdiction maintainable against cancellation of a PDS license if a revision remedy exists?
No. The Court held that writ jurisdiction is not maintainable when a statutory remedy under the 2016 Control Order remains unexhausted.
Q3. What timeline has the Court provided for the revision to be filed and decided?
The revision must be filed within four weeks of receiving the order, and the Divisional Commissioner must decide it within three months.
