Patna High Court
Udya Nand PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner must first pursue the revision remedy under Section 32(vi) of the Control Order, 2016.
Summary
Udya Nand Paswan challenged the cancellation of his PDS licence (No. 56R/2007) on allegations of black marketing of rice and wheat. He filed a writ petition seeking certiorari to quash the Collector's order dismissing his appeal and the Sub‑Divisional Officer's order cancelling the licence, and also sought mandamus to restore the licence. The Court observed that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 32(vi) of the Control Order, 2016, to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue that remedy within four weeks and stipulated timelines for the Commissioner’s decision. The writ petition was therefore disposed of without addressing the merits.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy for a petitioner aggrieved by the cancellation of a PDS licence under the Control Order, 2016?
- Whether a writ petition seeking certiorari and mandamus is maintainable when an alternative statutory revision remedy exists.
Legislation cited
- Control Order, 2016 — s. 32(vi)
Subjects
- PDS licence
- black marketing
- certiorari
- mandamus
- revision
- administrative law
- Control Order 2016
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13982 of 2025
======================================================
Udya Nand Paswan S/o Late Sukdeo Paswan, R/o Village/Hingua Ward nos
12, Po and Panchayat Parmanandpur, PS Raniganj, Dist Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Food and
Consumer Protection Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector, Dist. Araria.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Division Araria, Dist. Araria.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Block Raniganj, Dist. Araria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (20)
: Mr. Mahtab Alam, AC to SC20
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari thereby praying to quash the order dated
18.10.2024 passed by the respondent No. 3 the Appellate
Authority-cum- Collector, Araria, in PDS Appeal Case
No. 40/2023 whereby he has dismissed the appeal
preferred by this petitioner against the order dated
12.11.2022 passed by the respondent No. 4 the Licensing
Authority- cum- the Sub-divisional Officer, Araria, in
respect of PDS License No. 56R/2007 running in the
name of this petitioner whereby he has cancelled the
aforesaid licence on the allegation of black marketing of
96.74 quintals of rice and 77.45 quintals of wheat without
considering the plea of this petitioner and hence,
consequently, to quash the abovementioned order also
passed by the respondent No. 4 with consequential relief.
(ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus thereby praying to command, direct or order
the respondents to restore the licence No. 56R/2007 for
Patna High Court CWJC No.13982 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/2
running the PDS shop to the petitioner.
(iii) Any other order or orders which this
Hon’ble Court finds fit and proper in the given facts and
circumstances may kindly be passed.”
3. Without going into the merits or demerits of the
case, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is having an
alternative and efficacious remedy of filing a revision under
Section 32(vi) of the Control Order, 2016. The petitioner is
directed to approach the Divisional Commissioner ventilating
his grievance within a period of four weeks from the date of the
receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the revision, the
Divisional Commissioner shall pass necessary orders strictly in
accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereof. It is
needless to mention that before any order is passed, all the
parties shall be put on notice and given an opportunity of
hearing and submit their objections. The entire exercise shall be
completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a
period of eight weeks thereof. Any order passed shall be
communicated to all the parties.
4. With the above said directions, the writ petition
stand disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-
U
Checking your session…