Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy asks petitioner to avail alternative remedy by filing representation under Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

In Raj Kishore Pandey vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy passed a 5-page long judgement dated October 15, 2025 and disposed off the writ petition. The judgement reads: ''5. Admittedly, from the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a representation available under Section 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016....the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file the representation within two months from the date of receipt of this order before the Principal Secretary.'' The five other respondents were: Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division,Muzaffarpur, District Magistrate cum Collector, East Champaran at Motihari, Sub-Divisional Officer, chakiya ,East Champaran at Motihari,  District Supply Officer, East Champaran at Motihari and Block Supply Officer, Chakiya(East Champaran).

The writ petition was filed for the following reliefs:-
“(i) To issue an appropriate order/s, direction/s including writ preferably in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the order dated December 18, 2018 passed in P.D.S. Revision Case passed by Divisional Commissioner Tirhut Division Muzaffarpur, the Respondent no. 2  whereby he dismissed the PDS Revision Case and held that order dated June 1, 2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Chakiya East Champaran and order dated January 13, 2017 passed by the Collector East Champaran in S. Appeal Case cancelling the license of the petitioner bearing PDS License were speaking orders and there was no illegality in the order by the lower Court. (ii) To quash the Memo dated June 1, 2015 passed by the S.D.O Chakiya East Champaran whereby and whereunder PDS License of the petitioner was cancelled.
(iii) To quash the order dated January 13, 2017 passed in Appeal Case by the Collector whereby and whereunder appeal preferred by the Petitioner was dismissed and affirmed the order Passed by the S.D.O. Chakiya.
(iv) To direct Sub-Divisional Officer, Chakiya ,East Champaran at Motihari, the Respondent no. 04 to restore the license of the petitioner hence forth.

The counsel for the respondents drew the attention of the High Court towards Section 32 (vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Section 32 (vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 reads: “32. (vii) The Principal Secretary/ Secretary of the department may call for the records related to the order passed under the provisions of this Order by the Divisional Commissioner or the District Officer or the licensing authority or the Sub Divisional Officer suo moto or upon a representation by someone, and if he is satisfied that the Divisional Commissioner or the District Officer or the licensing authority or the Sub Divisional Officer (a) has exercised such powers which are not entrusted to him, (b) has exercised his powers illegally without considering the facts of the case, (c) has failed in use of his powers, he may pass an order which he thinks fit.”

It was one of the five judgements delivered by Justice Chakravarthy on October 15, 2025, wherein, she directed the petitioners to avail alternative remedy under the relevant laws. Besides Raj Kishore Pandey vs. The State of Bihar, these judgements were delivered in Vandna Devi vs. The State of Bihar, Javahar Prasad @ Jawahar Prasad vs. The State of Bihar, Dinesh Kapar vs. The Collector and Lakshman Sharma @ Lakshman Mandal vs. The State of Bihar.