Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court refused to directly interfere in the dispute regarding the allotment of a Public Distribution Shop (PDS) license and dismissed the writ petition. Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy held that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal and revision under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
The Court observed: “When the statute provides for a complete mechanism of appeal and revision, this Court cannot be approached in writ jurisdiction at the first instance.” The petitioner was directed to file a complaint or application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month, and the authority was instructed to condone the delay and decide the matter on merits within three months.
Facts
The petitioner, a resident of Purnea district, challenged the selection of another candidate for the allotment of a Public Distribution Shop (PDS) in Gram Panchayat Nowlakhi. She sought cancellation of the merit list prepared by the District Food and Supply Officer and the Block Supply Officer, alleging that the rival candidate’s eligibility was flawed.
The petitioner claimed that she was the real and meritorious applicant as her matriculation marks were superior, and further alleged that the rival’s in-laws operated a flour mill, making her ineligible under the PDS norms. She prayed for the cancellation of the rival candidate’s selection and for directions to allot the PDS license in her favour.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner could directly invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge the selection of a PDS shop dealer.
- Whether the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 barred the writ petition.
- Whether delay in approaching the appellate or revisional authority could be condoned.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that she was more meritorious and eligible than the selected candidate, whose selection was arbitrary and violative of PDS norms. She contended that her matriculation marks had not been duly verified, and the flour mill of the rival’s family rendered the selection invalid.
She further pleaded that the writ petition should be entertained since the statutory remedy had become time-barred, and the authorities would otherwise refuse to consider her application. Hence, a writ of mandamus should be issued for cancellation of the rival candidate’s selection and for granting the license to her.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State contended that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy under the Control Order of 2016. It was argued that Section 32(iii), (v), and (vi) clearly provided for appeal to the District Magistrate and revision before the Divisional Commissioner. Therefore, the petitioner could not bypass these remedies and directly approach the High Court.
The respondents emphasized that judicial review under Article 226 is discretionary and ordinarily not exercised where statutory remedies exist, except in cases of fundamental rights violation or lack of jurisdiction, which were not present here.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016:
- Section 32(iii): Provides for appeal to the District Magistrate within 30 days against denial, cancellation, or renewal of PDS license.
- Section 32(v): Allows the Appellate Authority to stay the order under appeal until disposal.
- Section 32(vi): Provides for revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within 60 days or against the appellate order.
The Court emphasized that when a statute provides an effective alternative remedy, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked unless exceptional grounds are shown. It noted that even if the limitation period had lapsed, Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be applied to condone delay, ensuring access to justice.
Precedent Analysis
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998) 8 SCC 1 – Held that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when efficacious statutory remedies exist, except in cases of violation of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction.
- Union of India v. T.R. Varma (1957 SCR 497) – Reiterated that writs are not substitutes for statutory remedies.
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603 – Held that the High Court must not interfere under Article 226 when adequate remedies are available under statute.
The Court applied these principles to hold that the petitioner must first exhaust remedies under the PDS Control Order before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that since the District Magistrate, being the head of the Selection Committee, could not review his own decision, the appropriate course for the petitioner was to approach the Divisional Commissioner under Section 32(vi).
It also noted that although the limitation for filing such an application had expired, justice demanded that delay be condoned. Hence, the petitioner was granted liberty to file the application within one month, and the authority was directed to entertain and decide it within three months.
Thus, the Court ensured that the petitioner’s grievance was not left unaddressed while maintaining judicial discipline regarding writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Divisional Commissioner within one month. It directed the authority to condone the delay and dispose of the matter within three months, ensuring fairness without bypassing the statutory framework.
Implications
This ruling underscores that writ jurisdiction cannot be a shortcut to bypass statutory remedies. The judgment strikes a balance by respecting the statutory mechanism under the PDS Control Order while safeguarding the petitioner’s right to be heard despite limitation.
It reaffirms judicial discipline in writ matters and provides clarity for future disputes in administrative selection processes under welfare schemes.
FAQs
Q1. Why did the Patna High Court dismiss the writ petition in the PDS shop case?
Because the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal and revision under the Bihar PDS Control Order, 2016.
Q2. What relief was granted to the petitioner despite dismissal of the writ?
The petitioner was allowed to approach the Divisional Commissioner within one month, with a direction that the delay be condoned and the application decided within three months.
Q3. What principle of law does this judgment reinforce?
That writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not ordinarily be exercised when an effective statutory remedy exists.