Case Background
The case arose from the cancellation of a Public Distribution System (PDS) fair price shop licence in West Champaran district, Bihar.
The petitioner was a dealer under the Jan Vitaran Pranali, holding Licence No. 72 of 2007 in Gram Panchayat Manjhariya, Block Gaunaya, Sub Division Narkatiyaganj, District West Champaran. He had been running the fair price shop since the licence was issued.
On 25.04.2013, the Sub Divisional Officer, Narkatiyaganj, inspected the petitioner’s shop. During this inspection, the officer found certain irregularities in the stock register. It was also noted that the quantity of foodgrains and kerosene oil supplied to particular persons was not entered in the distribution register.
Based on these findings, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide Memo No. 229 dated 25.04.2013. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply. He explained that the registers were not properly maintained because he was occupied with his brother’s marriage and also tendered an apology.
The Licensing Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Narkatiyaganj, was not satisfied with this explanation. By order dated 06.05.2013, the authority cancelled the PDS dealership of the petitioner (Shop No. 72 of 2007) with immediate effect.
The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, Bettiah, challenging the cancellation. The appellate authority, however, dismissed the appeal. Instead of challenging this appellate order by filing a revision before the competent authority, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court under its writ jurisdiction in 2017, seeking quashing of the cancellation order dated 06.05.2013.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The writ petition came up before the Patna High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Justice Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy. The core grievance of the petitioner was against the order dated 06.05.2013 passed by the Licensing Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Narkatiyaganj, cancelling his PDS dealership.
The petitioner’s case, as recorded in the judgment, was that he was an authorised fair price shop dealer under the Jan Vitaran Pranali with Licence No. 72 of 2007. He asserted that he had been running the PDS shop since the issuance of the licence. He did not dispute that an inspection was conducted on 25.04.2013 by the Sub Divisional Officer, or that irregularities were found in the stock and distribution records.
The irregularities noted during inspection included problems in the stock register and failure to record the quantity of foodgrains and kerosene oil supplied to specific beneficiaries in the distribution register. These omissions are significant in the context of the PDS, where accurate record-keeping is essential for transparency and to prevent diversion of foodgrains and kerosene meant for the public.
Upon receiving the show cause notice (Memo No. 229 dated 25.04.2013), the petitioner responded with a detailed reply. In that reply, he admitted that the registers were not properly maintained, explaining that he was busy with his brother’s marriage. He also sought an apology for these lapses.
According to the petitioner, the Licensing Authority-cum-S.D.O., Narkatiyaganj, mechanically rejected his reply without proper consideration and proceeded to cancel his licence. His basic allegation was that the authority did not apply its mind to his explanation and that the cancellation order was unjust and harsh.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents (State authorities) raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It was specifically contended that:
First, after the cancellation order dated 06.05.2013, the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the District Magistrate, Bettiah. The appellate authority examined the matter and dismissed the appeal.
Second, under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, there exists a further statutory remedy of revision against the appellate order. The petitioner, however, had not filed any revision.
According to the respondents, when such an alternative and efficacious remedy of revision is available under the PDS Control Order, the petitioner should not be permitted to bypass that remedy and invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Patna High Court directly.
The Court then examined the record placed before it. It found that the petitioner had indeed filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, Bettiah, and that the appellate authority had dismissed this appeal. Further, it was undisputed that the petitioner had not filed a revision under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
On this basis, the High Court focused on the principle of alternative remedy. The Court held that if an alternative statutory remedy is available to a petitioner, especially by way of revision before a competent authority, the petitioner is expected to avail that remedy first. In such situations, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is usually not invoked at the initial stage.
The Court concluded that, since the petitioner had failed to challenge the appellate order through a revision under the applicable PDS Control Order, the writ petition itself was not maintainable. In other words, the Court declined to enter into the merits of the cancellation or to examine whether the explanation about the brother’s marriage was acceptable.
However, while dismissing the writ petition on this ground, the Patna High Court gave the petitioner a clear direction and some relief in terms of procedure and timing. The Court directed the petitioner to file a revision before the revisional authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of the High Court’s order.
Recognising that there was already a delay in approaching the revisional authority, the Court further directed that any delay in filing the revision shall be condoned by the revisional authority. This means that the revisional authority has been expressly instructed not to reject the revision only on the ground of limitation, provided the petitioner files it within the 30-day window granted by the Court.
Additionally, the Court mandated that the revisional authority must dispose of the revision within three months from the date of filing of the revision petition. This ensures that the petitioner’s grievance regarding the cancellation of his PDS licence will be heard and decided in a time-bound manner by the competent authority under the statutory framework.
In the result, the writ petition was disposed of, not with a finding on right or wrong in the cancellation itself, but with a specific direction to pursue the statutory remedy of revision and instructions to the revisional authority to consider and decide the matter expeditiously. Any interlocutory applications in the case were also directed to stand disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for PDS dealers and beneficiaries in Bihar and beyond. It highlights that when government schemes like the Public Distribution System have clear procedures and appeal/revision mechanisms, those must be followed before approaching the High Court.
For PDS dealers, the decision shows that record-keeping lapses can lead to serious consequences like cancellation of licence. At the same time, it confirms that if their licence is cancelled, they have multiple statutory remedies—first appeal, then revision—before they think of filing a writ petition in the Patna High Court.
For ordinary ration card holders and the public, the judgment reinforces that the administration of PDS is governed by a specific law, the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Disputes are expected to be resolved first within this system so that specialised authorities can check the facts and take decisions efficiently.
More broadly, the judgment underlines a consistent approach taken by High Courts: writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory remedies. Even if a person feels that the authority has acted harshly or “mechanically”, they must normally exhaust the remedies provided in the law itself, unless there are exceptional circumstances (which are not recorded here).
By giving a fresh 30-day window to file a revision and ordering that delay be condoned and the matter decided within three months, the Court has tried to balance strict legal procedure with fairness to the petitioner. It sends a message that while procedure must be followed, genuine grievances should still get a full hearing before the proper forum.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a fair price shop dealer directly challenge the cancellation of his PDS licence before the Patna High Court by way of a writ petition, without first filing a revision under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, against the appellate order?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that when an alternative statutory remedy of revision is available and has not been availed, the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner must first file a revision before the competent revisional authority.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No earlier judgments or case law have been cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17607 of 2017
Case Title: Rakesh Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation: 2025(3) PLJR 286
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy
Date of Judgment: 19.06.2025
Advocates:
For the petitioner: Mr. Suresh Prasad Sharma, Advocate
For the respondents: Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC 4
Respondents: State of Bihar and concerned district and supply authorities, including the District Magistrate, West Champaran, the District Supply Officer, the Licence Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Narkatiyaganj, the Block Supply Officer, and the Executive Magistrate, Narkatiyaganj.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (civil) challenging the cancellation of a PDS fair price shop licence and the subsequent dismissal of appeal, disposed of on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy of revision.
Outcome: Writ petition held to be not maintainable due to non-availing of the alternative remedy of revision; petitioner directed to file revision within 30 days; revisional authority directed to condone delay and decide the revision within three months of its filing; interlocutory applications disposed of.
link to judgement; https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTc2MDcjMjAxNyMxI04=-Yc–am1–ZYS83–am1–Oo=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
