Alternative Remedy Bars Writ Jurisdiction In PDS License Cancellation: Patna HC

The Patna High Court has reinforced the principle of judicial restraint in matters where statutory alternative remedies exist, directing a PDS dealer to approach the appellate authority despite the expiry of the limitation period. The ruling underscores the Court's reluctance to bypass the specialized mechanisms established under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 for license-related grievances.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy heard the challenge against the cancellation of a Public Distribution System (PDS) license. The Court observed that the petitioner sought to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction instead of utilizing the specific appellate route provided under the prevailing control order.

Key Takeaways

Exhaustion of Remedies

The Court reaffirmed that writ petitions should not generally be entertained when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy like a departmental appeal is available.

Condonation of Delay Directions

In a relief to the litigant, the Court directed the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing the appeal, ensuring that procedural lapses do not result in a total loss of the right to be heard.

Timely Disposal Mandate

The judgment imposes a strict three-month timeline for the appellate authority to resolve the dispute, aiming to prevent prolonged litigation in essential commodity distribution matters.

Judicial Rationale and Mandatory Directions

The Court noted that the petitioner's challenge to the cancellation order, based on local complaints and inquiries, fell squarely within the appellate jurisdiction defined by the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. While the petitioner raised concerns regarding the limitation period under the Limitation Act, the Court balanced the need for statutory compliance with the interests of justice.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Admittedly, from the reliefs prayed for in the Writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the provisions of Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016."

The Court has following directions:
"Taking into consideration that the petitioner has an alternative remedy for filing appeal, the Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file appeal within one month from the date of receipt/production of this order before the concerned authority. The delay in filing the appeal shall be condoned by the authority concerned, and the authority shall dispose of the same within three months from the date of filing thereof."

Ratio

The High Court held that where a specific appellate mechanism is provided under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 for the cancellation of a PDS license, the petitioner must exhaust said remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; however, the Court may grant liberty to file such an appeal with a direction to condone the limitation period to ensure a decision on merits.

Background

The petitioner, a PDS dealer in Vaishali district, challenged Memo no. 1324 dated 08.06.2022 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahnar. The impugned order had cancelled the petitioner’s PDS License (no. 30/2016) following an inquiry by the Block Supply Officer and complaints lodged by local residents.

During the proceedings, the State raised a preliminary objection, pointing to Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which mandates that an aggrieved party must appeal to the District Officer within thirty days. The petitioner argued that the limitation period had already lapsed and sought the Court’s intervention to ensure the appeal would be heard on its merits under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court disposed of the petition by granting the petitioner one month to file the appeal and directing the authorities to condone the delay and decide the matter within three months.

Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9594 of 2022
CNR No. BRHC010504492022
Case Title: Sanjay Anand v. The State of Bihar & Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arvind Ujjwal (SC11)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PAT) 3300