Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court, presided over by Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy, disposed of a writ petition challenging the selection of another candidate for a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealership, reiterating that a writ petition is not maintainable when a statutory remedy exists.
The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Divisional Commissioner by filing a complaint or application under the provisions of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The Court also directed the concerned authority to condone any delay in filing such a complaint in accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, provided it is filed within two months of receipt of the order.
“When a complete mechanism is provided under the statute, the High Court ought not to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226,” the Court emphasized, underlining the well-settled doctrine of ‘alternative remedy’ in administrative law.
Facts
The petitioner had applied for a Public Distribution System (PDS) license in response to Advertisement No. 01/2017 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Gaya, pursuant to various memos and circulars issued by the Food and Civil Supply Department, Bihar. The petitioner claimed to have fulfilled all requisite eligibility criteria prescribed under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
However, the authorities selected another candidate, who had secured 71.80% marks including a qualification in Advanced Diploma in Computer Application (ADCA). The petitioner alleged that such selection was contrary to the provisions of the PDS Control Order, 2016 and sought cancellation of the said license.
Instead of availing the statutory remedies under the Control Order, the petitioner directly approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking writs of mandamus and certiorari to cancel the rival candidate’s selection and grant the dealership in his favor.
Issues
- Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of an alternative remedy under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016?
- Whether the petitioner could be permitted to file a complaint beyond the prescribed limitation period?
- What directions, if any, should be issued to safeguard the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that he had met all the eligibility conditions under the Control Order, 2016, yet the authorities arbitrarily granted the PDS license to another candidate. He submitted that the rival candidate’s selection violated the procedural norms and principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
He contended that though there existed provisions for appeal and revision under Section 32 of the Control Order, the District Magistrate, being the head of the selection committee, could not fairly adjudicate an appeal against his own order. Therefore, invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court was justified.
The petitioner further submitted that even if the Court directed him to approach the statutory forum, the limitation period for filing an appeal or revision had already lapsed. Hence, he prayed for directions to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State, represented through the Additional Advocate General, argued that the PDS Control Order, 2016 provides a complete statutory mechanism for redressal of grievances, including provisions for appeal (Section 32(iii)) and revision (Section 32(vi)).
It was submitted that the petitioner should have availed the said remedies instead of directly invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The respondent further contended that judicial interference at this stage would be premature and unwarranted, as the petitioner had a viable remedy before the Divisional Commissioner.
The respondents maintained that the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, should refrain from acting as an appellate body unless exceptional circumstances—such as violation of fundamental rights or lack of jurisdiction—are established, which was not the case here.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Section 32(iii), (v), and (vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which collectively provide a structured remedy mechanism:
- Section 32(iii) allows an aggrieved person to appeal to the District Officer (District Magistrate) within 30 days against an order denying or cancelling a license.
- Section 32(v) empowers the Appellate Authority to stay the effect of the impugned order pending appeal.
- Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner in cases of delayed appeal disposal or against the appellate order, which must be decided within two months.
The Court emphasized that these provisions are comprehensive in nature, leaving no scope for direct judicial intervention unless the remedy is illusory or ineffective. Thus, judicial prudence dictates deference to the statutory process.
Precedent Analysis
While the judgment itself does not cite specific precedents, its reasoning is anchored in long-established principles affirmed by the Supreme Court in similar contexts:
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998) 8 SCC 1 — held that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction when the order is passed without jurisdiction, in violation of fundamental rights, or in breach of natural justice.
- Union of India v. T.R. Varma (1957) — emphasized that judicial review should be avoided when administrative remedies are adequate.
- State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh (1958) — reiterated that unless the remedy is illusory or ineffective, the High Court should refrain from interference.
Applying these principles, the Patna High Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting direct writ intervention, as the petitioner could effectively pursue relief before the Divisional Commissioner.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that since the District Magistrate—the head of the selection committee—could not review his own decision in an appeal, the appropriate forum for the petitioner was the Divisional Commissioner, who exercises revisional jurisdiction.
Recognizing that the petitioner’s delay in filing may have been caused by his pursuit of the writ petition, the Court exercised equitable discretion by allowing him two months from the receipt of the order to file a complaint/application before the competent authority.
Importantly, the Court directed the authority to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and decide the matter within three months, ensuring procedural fairness and timely adjudication.
Conclusion
The 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 receipt of this order.
- The delay in filing shall be condoned by the concerned authority.
- The authority shall dispose of the complaint within three months from its filing date.
The Court thus reaffirmed the doctrine of alternative remedy and reinforced judicial discipline in maintaining the hierarchy of statutory forums.
“Statutory remedies are not mere formalities—they embody legislative intent to provide accessible justice through structured mechanisms,” the Court concluded.
Implications
This ruling reinforces the settled position that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions when adequate statutory remedies exist, especially under specialized regulatory frameworks such as the Public Distribution System Control Order, 2016.
It also underscores that while courts may intervene to protect substantive justice, they will simultaneously ensure that procedural propriety and statutory hierarchy are respected.
By directing the Divisional Commissioner to condone delay and decide expeditiously, the judgment balances administrative efficiency with fairness, preventing miscarriage of justice due to technical limitations.
FAQs
1. Why did the Patna High Court refuse to grant relief under Article 226?
Because the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides a specific appellate and revisional mechanism, which the petitioner must first exhaust.
2. Can a High Court entertain a writ despite an alternative remedy?
Only in exceptional circumstances—such as violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction, or breach of natural justice.
3. What was the Court’s direction regarding delay in filing the complaint?
The Court directed the Divisional Commissioner to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and decide the matter within three months.
