Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court, presided over by Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy, reaffirmed the settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be invoked when an alternative statutory remedy exists. The Court held that the petitioner, aggrieved by the denial of a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealership, must first exhaust the remedy provided under Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, before approaching the High Court.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition with directions that the petitioner may file a complaint or application before the Divisional Commissioner within two months. The Court further directed that any delay in filing shall be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the matter must be decided within three months of such filing, after granting the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing.
“When a complete mechanism is provided under the statute, the High Court ought not to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226,” the Court observed, emphasizing judicial discipline in matters involving statutory processes.
Facts
The petitioner had applied for the grant of a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealership license under the Jan Vitran Pranali scheme for the Bochahan Block in Muzaffarpur district. Despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria, the petitioner’s application was not considered, prompting the filing of this writ petition seeking directions to the authorities for granting the license and to consider his candidature fairly.
The petitioner prayed for:
- Issuance of a writ directing the respondents to grant the PDS dealership license.
- A further direction to consider his candidature for the same.
- Any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court.
The respondents, however, contended that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy available under the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.
Issues
- Whether the writ petition was maintainable in light of the statutory remedies of appeal and revision provided under Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016.
- Whether the Court could direct the condonation of delay in filing a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner.
- Whether principles of natural justice were violated in the process of rejecting the petitioner’s claim.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that he had duly applied for the PDS dealership and satisfied all eligibility criteria prescribed under the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016. He alleged that the authorities failed to consider his application objectively, causing denial of livelihood and arbitrary exclusion.
He contended that though a statutory remedy existed, the District Magistrate, being the head of the Selection Committee, could not fairly hear an appeal against his own decision. Hence, the petitioner claimed that the statutory remedy was illusory and ineffective, justifying the invocation of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.
Further, the petitioner requested that if the Court were to direct him to approach the Divisional Commissioner, it should also order condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, since the statutory time limit for filing had already lapsed due to his bona fide pursuit of the writ petition.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State, represented by its counsel, argued that the writ petition was premature and not maintainable, as the petitioner had not exhausted the available remedies under the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016.
It was submitted that Section 32(iii) of the Order provides for an appeal before the District Officer (District Magistrate) against any denial or cancellation of a PDS license, while Section 32(vi) allows a revision before the Divisional Commissioner in case the appeal is not disposed of within 60 days. These provisions form a comprehensive statutory mechanism that the petitioner was bound to follow.
The respondents stressed that the High Court should not bypass such a statutory process unless the petitioner could establish exceptional circumstances such as violation of fundamental rights or total absence of jurisdiction, none of which were made out in this case.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016, which explicitly provides for a hierarchical grievance redressal mechanism:
- Section 32(iii) allows an appeal to the District Officer within 30 days of receiving the order.
- Section 32(v) empowers the appellate authority to stay the order pending appeal.
- Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within 60 days or against the appellate order.
The Court held that these provisions are comprehensive and self-contained, thus leaving no ground for direct recourse to the High Court. The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly, particularly when a statutory forum exists for redressal.
The High Court also underscored that the Limitation Act, 1963, particularly Section 5, can be invoked to condone delays when a petitioner demonstrates sufficient cause. Therefore, justice would not be denied merely due to procedural delay, provided the petitioner acts within the extended time granted by the Court.
Precedent Analysis
While the judgment did not expressly cite earlier authorities, the Court’s reasoning aligns with established Supreme Court precedents, including:
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 — which clarified that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction can only be invoked despite alternative remedies if there is a violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or infringement of fundamental rights.
- Union of India v. T.R. Varma (1957) — which emphasized that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be exercised when an effective remedy exists.
- State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh (1958) — which reiterated that judicial review is not a substitute for appellate procedures established by law.
By applying these precedents, the Court reaffirmed that when a specialized statute provides for appeal and revision, those remedies must first be exhausted.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Chakravarthy reasoned that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy bars the maintainability of a writ petition, except in exceptional situations. Since the District Magistrate, who headed the selection committee, could not act as the appellate authority against his own order, the appropriate forum for the petitioner was the Divisional Commissioner under Section 32(vi).
Recognizing the petitioner’s apprehension about limitation, the Court exercised its equitable discretion to allow him to file his complaint or application within two months and directed that the delay be condoned by the authority concerned. Furthermore, the authority was instructed to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of filing, ensuring procedural fairness and natural justice.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The petitioner shall file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
- The delay in filing shall be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- The concerned authority shall decide the matter within three months, granting the petitioner an opportunity for a fair hearing.
By reinforcing the doctrine of alternative remedy, the Court once again emphasized judicial restraint and procedural propriety, ensuring that justice flows through the channels prescribed by law.
Implications
This ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s stance that High Courts must exercise judicial discipline and self-restraint while entertaining writ petitions. It underscores that writ jurisdiction is not meant to bypass statutory frameworks, especially where appellate and revisional remedies exist.
The judgment also provides flexibility by allowing condonation of delay for petitioners who act bona fide, thereby balancing procedural rigor with fairness. It serves as a guiding precedent for similar disputes under administrative and regulatory schemes, particularly in the domain of Public Distribution System licensing and other welfare-related government programs.
FAQs
1. Why did the High Court refuse to grant relief under Article 226?
Because the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016, which provided a clear procedure for appeal and revision.
2. Can the petitioner still challenge the denial of PDS dealership?
Yes. The Court allowed the petitioner to approach the Divisional Commissioner, directing that any delay in filing be condoned and the matter decided within three months.
3. What legal principle does this judgment reinforce?
It reinforces the doctrine of alternative remedy, which mandates that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.