Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court, presided over by Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy, reaffirmed the principle that a writ petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained when an effective alternative statutory remedy is available under the law. The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a candidate challenging the selection of another individual for a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealership, directing the petitioner to approach the Divisional Commissioner under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
In a significant clarification, the Court further directed that if the petitioner files the complaint or application within two months, the delay shall be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the authority must decide the same within three months after granting a fair opportunity of hearing.
“When an efficacious alternative remedy exists within the statutory framework, the High Court ought not to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226,” the Court observed, reinforcing judicial restraint and adherence to procedural hierarchy.
Facts
The petitioner had been earlier selected for the PDS dealership for Ward No. 1 under Itwa Jiwachhpur Panchayat in Gamhariya Block, Madhepura District. However, by Memo No. 573/Aa dated 05.07.2019, the District Magistrate issued a fresh selection order granting the license to another candidate. The petitioner alleged that this was done without notice or cancellation of her earlier selection, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
She sought reliefs in the form of (i) quashing of the memo, (ii) direction to grant her the PDS license, and (iii) a writ restraining the respondents from issuing a license to the newly selected candidate.
The State resisted the petition, contending that the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016 provides a detailed appellate and revisional framework, which the petitioner failed to utilize before approaching the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of an alternative remedy under the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016?
- Whether the petitioner’s claim that the selection process was arbitrary and illegal warranted direct intervention by the High Court?
- Whether the petitioner could seek condonation of delay for filing an appeal or complaint beyond the statutory period?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that she was earlier selected for the PDS dealership, but her selection was arbitrarily cancelled and replaced by another candidate without due process. She argued that the authorities acted in violation of natural justice, as no show-cause notice or communication was issued before cancelling her selection.
She further submitted that though the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, 2016 provides for an appellate mechanism under Section 32(iii) and a revisional forum under Section 32(vi), the District Magistrate himself was the head of the selection committee that had issued the disputed order. Therefore, it would be futile and biased to file an appeal before the same authority.
The petitioner requested that if the Court declined to interfere, she be allowed to file a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner, and the delay in filing the same be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, considering her bona fide pursuit of the writ petition.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State, represented by the learned Additional Advocate General, argued that the writ petition was not maintainable since the petitioner had a clear alternative statutory remedy available under Section 32(iii) and (vi) of the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, 2016.
It was contended that Section 32(iii) allows an appeal to the District Officer (District Magistrate) against any order of license denial, renewal, or cancellation, and Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner in case the appeal is not decided within sixty days.
Thus, the statutory scheme provides a complete and efficacious process for redressal, which the petitioner should have availed. The State maintained that entertaining writ petitions at this stage would undermine the statutory mechanism and overburden constitutional courts.
The respondents also clarified that, under the law, procedural irregularities or grievances in selection can be appropriately rectified at the revisional stage, ensuring administrative justice.
Analysis of the Law
Justice Chakravarthy examined Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which lays down the appeal and revision process as follows:
- Section 32(iii): Any person aggrieved by the order of the licensing authority denying or cancelling a PDS license may file an appeal to the District Officer within 30 days.
- Section 32(v): The appellate authority may stay the order under appeal pending its disposal.
- Section 32(vi): If the appeal is not disposed of within 60 days, or if the appellant is dissatisfied, a revision may be filed before the Divisional Commissioner, who shall decide it within two months.
The Court observed that the above provisions form a self-contained remedial framework, ensuring both fairness and speed. Therefore, the High Court’s writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because the petitioner preferred a more direct route to redress.
The Court also invoked Section 5 of the Limitation Act, affirming that statutory authorities have the power to condone delays when there is sufficient cause — particularly when a litigant has been pursuing a remedy in good faith before a wrong forum such as the High Court.
Precedent Analysis
Though the order did not explicitly reference prior judgments, the reasoning aligns with settled Supreme Court precedents, including:
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, (1998) 8 SCC 1: The Court held that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an alternative remedy exists unless there is a breach of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction.
- Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882: The Supreme Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction cannot substitute for statutory remedies provided under law.
- State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86: The Court ruled that the availability of an effective alternative remedy precludes the High Court from entertaining a writ petition, barring exceptional circumstances.
By applying these precedents, the Patna High Court reaffirmed that judicial restraint and procedural discipline are essential for the effective functioning of the justice system.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that since the District Magistrate is the head of the selection committee, it would be inappropriate for him to hear an appeal against his own order. Therefore, the Divisional Commissioner is the correct forum to adjudicate the petitioner’s grievance under Section 32(vi) of the Control Order.
Recognizing the petitioner’s plea for delay condonation, the Court exercised equitable discretion, directing that the Divisional Commissioner must condone the delay if the complaint is filed within two months from the receipt of the High Court’s order.
Justice Chakravarthy emphasized that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is not meant to replace statutory mechanisms but to ensure they function effectively and fairly. The Court found no violation of fundamental rights or procedural injustice that warranted direct intervention.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The petitioner may file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within two months from the receipt of the order.
- The delay in filing shall be condoned by the authority under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- The concerned authority shall dispose of the complaint within three months, ensuring an opportunity for hearing.
Through this judgment, the Court upheld the doctrine of alternative remedy as an essential cornerstone of administrative law and reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory processes.
Implications
This ruling strengthens the legal doctrine that High Courts must refrain from entertaining writ petitions when the legislature has provided an effective appellate or revisional process. It ensures administrative consistency and prevents forum shopping by litigants seeking to bypass the statutory hierarchy.
The Court’s direction allowing delay condonation underlines a balanced approach — preserving the petitioner’s access to justice while maintaining the sanctity of procedural law. It will serve as an important precedent in cases involving disputes over PDS licenses and government selections under similar statutory schemes.
FAQs
1. Why did the Patna High Court dismiss the writ petition?
Because the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy under Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, 2016, and the High Court cannot intervene when such remedy exists.
2. What directions did the Court issue?
The petitioner was directed to approach the Divisional Commissioner within two months, and the authority was instructed to condone any delay and decide the case within three months.3. What is the significance of this judgment?
It reinforces the doctrine of alternative remedy, ensuring that statutory forums are respected and judicial resources are used efficiently.