Disposed¶29

Padum Lal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC24 Jan 2025CWJC/18131/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PDS licence cancellation; Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016; Section 32 / Rule 32(6), 32(7); alternative remedy; Divisional Commissioner; Principal Secretary; statutory appeal rejected by District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Kishanganj; Memo No. 957 dated 15.11.2014; License No. 23TR of 2007; writ petition disposed without going into merits; Padum Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar; Patna High Court; decided 24-01-2025; NAFR; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner to approach the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks; Divisional Commissioner to dispose of the petition within two months under sub-rule (6) of Rule 32 of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016; any delay in limitation to be liberally construed. ¶29

Padum Lal Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be entertained notwithstanding the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the appeal provisions (Section 32) of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016.

¶19

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court directed the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy before the Divisional Commissioner.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was directed to approach the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶24

Key takeaways

The Court observed that, as per the appeal provisions under Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016, the writ petition lies against the appellate order as well as the revisional order.obiter¶23
The Court observed that the matter can also be challenged before the Principal Secretary under clause (7) of Rule 32 of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016.obiter¶23
The Divisional Commissioner was directed to dispose of the petition within two months, as stipulated under sub-rule (6) of Rule 32 of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Padum Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar, Patna High Court, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18131 of 2017, decided 24-01-2025 (G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.). The petitioner, holder of PDS License No. 23TR of 2007, challenged (i) the notice dated 22.09.2014 and the order contained in Memo No. 957 dated 15.11.2014 of the Learned Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Kishanganj, whereby the licence was cancelled, and (ii) the order dated 20.06.2017 in PDS Appeal Case No. 03/2015 by which the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Kishanganj rejected his statutory appeal. Without going into the merits, the Court held that the petitioner must first avail the alternative remedy before the Divisional Commissioner, directed him to approach within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order, and directed the Divisional Commissioner to dispose of the petition within two months as stipulated under sub-rule (6) of Rule 32 of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016, with any delay in limitation to be liberally construed. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18131 of 2017

¶2

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

¶3

Padum Lal Yadav S/o Ajay Lal Yadav, resident of Village- Balua Jagir, Panchayat- Jhala, P.S.- Terhagachh, District- Kishanganj.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Food & Consumer Protection Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Kishanganj.

¶8

The Sub- Divisional Officer, Kishanganj.

¶9

The District Statistics Officer, Kishanganj, District- Kishanganj

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amal Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Bijoy Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-V

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

Date : 24-01-2025

¶16

1. The Writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 22.09.2014 as well as the order contained in Memo No. 957 dated 15.11.2014, passed by the Learned Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Kishanganj, whereby the PDS license of the petitioner, was canceled being License No. 23TR of 2007 and for further quashing the order dated 20.06.2017 passed in PDS Appeal Case No. 03/2015 by the Learned District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Kishanganj by which the statutory appeal has been

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.18131 of 2017 dt.24-01-2025 2/4

¶18

rejected and for restoring the license of the petitioner.

¶19

2. During the course of arguments, it is contended by the Learned counsel for the respondents that an alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 32(6) of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016 and that petitioner instead of availing the said alternative remedy has approached this Court by way of a Writ petition. It is further contended that Section 32(7) of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016 provides an additional remedy before the Principal Secretary of the Department against the order of the Divisional Commissioner.

¶20

3. Heard the arguments of the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned counsel for the Respondent-State and perused the record.

¶21

4. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner has filed the Writ petition against the order passed in PDS Appeal No. 03 of 2015 dated 20.06.2017 by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Kishanganj.

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.18131 of 2017 dt.24-01-2025 3/4

¶23

5. Admittedly, as per the appeal provisions under Section 32 of Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016, it is evident that the Writ petition lies against the appellate order as well as the revisional order. Further, the Writ petition order can also be challenged before the Principal Secretary under clause (7) of Rule 32 of Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016. Therefore, without going into the merits of this case, this Court directs the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy before the Divisional Commissioner.

¶24

6. The petitioner shall approach the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

7. In turn, the Divisional Commissioner shall dispose of the petition within two months, as stipulated under sub-rule (6) of Rule 32 of Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016.

¶26

8. As the Writ petition was filed in the year 2017, any delay in the limitation that shall be liberally construed by the Divisional Commissioner.

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.18131 of 2017 dt.24-01-2025 4/4

¶28

9. With the above direction, the Writ petition

¶29

is disposed of.

¶30

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)

¶31

amitkr/-