Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the cancellation of a fair price shop licence under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, citing the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the revisional authority under Clause 32(vi) of the 2016 Control Order within 30 days and ordered that the delay in filing be condoned. The Court held that “if an alternative remedy is available, the petitioner has to file a revision before the appropriate authority.”
Facts
The petitioner, a fair price shop licensee under Jan Vitaran Pranali with License No. 72 of 2007, was operating in Gram Panchayat Manjhariya, Block Gaunaya, West Champaran. On 25.04.2013, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Narkatiyaganj, inspected the shop and identified irregularities in the stock and distribution registers, particularly the omission of quantities distributed to beneficiaries. A show-cause notice was issued, to which the petitioner replied, citing his brother’s marriage as the reason for improper record-keeping and seeking an apology. Dissatisfied, the Licensing Authority cancelled his licence with immediate effect. An appeal filed before the District Magistrate, Bettiah, was dismissed. The petitioner then approached the High Court by way of writ petition.
Issues
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy is available under Clause 32(vi) of the Bihar TPDS (Control) Order, 2016.
- Whether the cancellation order, despite a reply citing mitigating circumstances, was arbitrary or legally sustainable.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the cancellation order was arbitrary, passed without properly appreciating the explanation offered in the reply to the show-cause notice. He emphasized that the omission in record-keeping occurred due to preoccupation with personal family commitments and was not deliberate. The order, being passed in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind, violated principles of natural justice.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents submitted that the petitioner had already availed an appeal remedy, which was dismissed, and had not pursued the revision remedy under Clause 32(vi) of the 2016 Control Order. The writ petition, filed directly under Article 226 without exhausting statutory remedies, was therefore not maintainable. They asserted that the cancellation was based on due procedure after detection of irregularities during inspection.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered the scheme of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, specifically Clause 32(vi), which provides a remedy by way of revision against an appellate order. It reiterated the well-settled legal position that when an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy exists, a writ petition should not ordinarily be entertained.
Precedent Analysis
Though no specific case precedents were cited in the judgment, the ruling follows the general legal principle established in multiple decisions of the Supreme Court, including Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, (1998) 8 SCC 1, and Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419, which discourage direct invocation of writ jurisdiction when alternative remedies exist, barring exceptional circumstances.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the writ petition was premature as the petitioner had not availed the remedy of revision under the 2016 Control Order. It emphasized that even though the petitioner had exhausted the appellate route, the revision mechanism was an available and mandatory step before invoking the writ jurisdiction. The Court observed that “the petitioner has to file a revision before the appropriate authority,” and made it clear that the remedy under Clause 32(vi) could not be bypassed.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. It dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the revisional authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. It directed that the delay in filing the revision, if any, shall be condoned, and the revision be decided within three months.
Implications
The judgment underscores the principle that litigants must exhaust statutory remedies before approaching constitutional courts under Article 226. It serves as a reminder that writ jurisdiction is not an alternative to statutory appellate or revisional processes unless there is a clear violation of fundamental rights or complete absence of jurisdiction.
FAQs
1. Can a writ petition be filed directly against a licence cancellation under Bihar TPDS Control Order, 2016?
No, the High Court held that a revision under Clause 32(vi) must be filed first, and writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked without exhausting this statutory remedy.
2. What is the time limit for filing a revision under the Bihar TPDS Control Order, 2016?
The petitioner must file the revision within 30 days from the date of receipt of the High Court order, as per the Court’s directive.
3. Can delay in filing the revision be condoned?
Yes, the Court explicitly directed that the revisional authority shall condone any delay and decide the matter within three months.
Case(s) Referred and Their Relevance
While the judgment does not explicitly cite any case law, it is grounded in established jurisprudence. The following landmark principles are reflected:
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks – Writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when efficacious alternative remedies exist.
- Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes – Hierarchical remedies must be exhausted before invoking Article 226,
- These judgments provide the underlying legal rationale followed by the Court.
