Patna High Court
Md Jalil @ Jalil MiyanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner must first pursue the revision remedy under Section 32(vi) of the Control Order.
Summary
Md Jalil Miyan, a fair price shop dealer, had his PDS dealership licence cancelled by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Areraj, under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, on grounds of alleged illegality and irregularity in grain distribution. He appealed to the Collector‑cum‑District Magistrate, who dismissed the appeal and affirmed the S.D.O.'s order. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking quashing of the cancellation order, restoration of his licence and other reliefs. The Court observed that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 32(vi) of the same Control Order, i.e., filing a revision before the Divisional Commissioner. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue that revision within four weeks and stipulated procedural timelines for the Commissioner. The writ petition was therefore disposed of without entertaining the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016 is available.
- Whether the order cancelling the PDS dealership licence can be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
Subjects
- Public Distribution System
- Licence cancellation
- Writ petition
- Revision remedy
- Administrative law
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19105 of 2025
======================================================
Md Jalil @ Jalil Miyan S/o Chandar Miyan, R/o Village and Panchayat-
Pannapur, P.S- Harsidhi, District- East Champaran (Motihari).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and
Consumer Protection, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran (Motihari).
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Areraj, District- East Champaran (Motihari).
4. The District Supply Officer, East Champaran (Motihari).
5. The Block Supply Officer, Harsidhi, District- East Champaran (Motihari).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (26)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 29-01-2026 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“i) To issue an appropriate order/s, direction/s
including a writ preferably in the nature of
CERTIORARI for quashing of the order dated
11-07-2025 passed in PDS Appeal Case No. 02/
2025-26 passed by learned Collector-cum-
District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari
by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioner and affirm the order passed by the
S.D.O. Areraj on 27-10-2018 vide Memo No. 03
(Go).
(ii) To quash the order as contained in Memo No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19105 of 2025(2) dt.29-01-2026
2/3
03 (Go), dated 27-10-2018 passed by the learned
S.D.O. Areraj, East Champaran (Hereinafter
referred to as Licensing Authority under the
Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
(Control) order 2016) whereby and where under
he has cancel the fair price shop license of the
petitioner for committing illegality and
irregularity in distribution of food grains
amongst to the consumers.
(iii) To direct the respondent No. 03 the S.D.O.,
Areraj, East Champaran to restore the P.D.S.
dealership license of the petitioner henceforth
with taking into the consideration that the same
is only means of earning livelihood.
(iv) To any other relief/s to which the petitioner
may be found entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.19105 of 2025(2) dt.29-01-2026
3/3
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)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…