Dismissed¶25

Mina Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC12 Jul 2024L.P.A/662/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mina Kumari v State of Bihar; Patna High Court LPA No.662 of 2021 (in re CWJC No.5511 of 2021); PDS licence cancellation; alternate remedy; Article 226 discretionary remedy; Division Bench deference to Single Judge's refusal of discretion; Rule 32(vi) Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016; revision before Divisional Commissioner / Revisional Authority; show-cause notice defect plea; writ petition dismissed; remedy of revision left open; decided 12-07-2024; oral judgment K. Vinod Chandran CJ with Nani Tagia J.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the writ petition stands dismissed with the appellant expressly left with the remedy of filing a revision before the Divisional Commissioner (Revisional Authority). ¶25

Mina Kumari Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the writ petition stands dismissed with the appellant expressly left with the remedy of filing a revision before the Divisional Commissioner (Revisional Authority).

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's writ petition seeking Article 226 intervention over the cancellation of her PDS licence should be entertained despite an available alternate remedy of revision under Rule 32(vi) before the Divisional Commissioner. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and is to be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Since the learned Single Judge declined discretion, it is not open to the Division Bench to sit in appeal over that order unless it is found to be grossly perverse.

¶20

Key takeaways

The Divisional Commissioner, as Revisional Authority, would have the power to examine the matter (the cancellation of the PDS licence).ratio¶20
The claim that the revisionary remedy is not efficacious was not countenanced: within the three years the appeal lay pending, a revision would certainly have been disposed of by the Revisional Authority.ratio¶21
Finding absolutely no reason to entertain the writ petition at that point of time, the Court dismissed it while expressly leaving the appellant the remedy of filing a revision.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal No.662 of 2021 in re Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5511 of 2021 - Mina Kumari v. The State of Bihar and others (cancellation of appellant's PDS licence). The learned Single Judge had declined discretionary Article 226 relief, pointing to revision before the Divisional Commissioner under Rule 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 as the alternate remedy. Oral judgment of the Bench (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ; Nani Tagia, J), dated 12-07-2024: Article 226 is a discretionary remedy for extraordinary circumstances only; the Division Bench will not sit in appeal over the Single Judge's refusal of discretion unless the order is grossly perverse; the Divisional Commissioner as Revisional Authority has power to examine the matter; the appeal's three-year pendency does not render revision inefficacious. Writ petition dismissed, appellant expressly left with the remedy of filing a revision. No precedent engaged; no monetary element involved.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.662 of 2021 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5511 of 2021

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Mina Kumari wife of Jagmohan Ravidas and daughter of Dipan Mochi, Resident of Village-Malama, P.S. Hilsa, District-Nalanda.

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nalanda at Biharsharif.

¶9

The Licensing Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda.

¶10

The Block Supply Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bhola Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad (Aag5) ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶14

Date : 12-07-2024

¶15

The appellant is concerned with the

¶16

cancellation of a PDS license. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention on the ground that there is a revision, an alternate remedy, before the Divisional Commissioner in terms of Rule 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

¶17

The learned counsel for the appellant

¶18

Patna High Court L.P.A No.662 of 2021 dt.12-07-2024 2/3

¶19

argued that there is a defect in the show-cause notice since no cancellation had been threatened. It is also submitted that the remedy of revision is not efficacious. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant seek invocation of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances, and it is trite that it is a discretionary remedy. The learned Single Judge having declined discretion, it is not for the Division Bench to sit in appeal over such an order unless it is found to be grossly perverse. It is not as if the Divisional Commissioner, the Revisional Authority would not have the power to examine the matter.

¶21

We also cannot countenance the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the remedy is not efficacious since the appeal filed in the year 2021 remained pending in this Court for three years, within which time a revision definitely would have been

¶22

Patna High Court L.P.A No.662 of 2021 dt.12-07-2024 3/3

¶23

disposed of by the Revisional Authority.

¶24