Availability of an efficacious remedy of appeal under Rule 30(i) of the Control Order, 2019 influenced the court's decision on the maintainability of the writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 184(ii) dated 30.01.2019 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 3 – the District Supply Officer, Gumla by which the petitioner’s PDS shop Licence No. 02/1998 has been cancelled and tagged with another PDS shop on the ground that the explanation sought by the respondent no. 3 against the complaint made by villagers regarding irregularity in distributing food grain among cardholders was not satisfactory. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to restore the petitioner’s PDS shop Licence No. 02/1998 and supply food grain for distributing the same among the cardholders.

2. Mr. Prakash Jha, AC to GP-IV appearing on behalf of the respondents, raises a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of preferring appeal under Rule 30(i) of Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “Control Order, 2019”) against the impugned order dated 30.01.2019 issued by the respondent no. 3.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of preferring appeal under Rule 30(i) of the Control Order, 2019, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage.

4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable at this stage. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take alternative/statutory recourse of appeal against the impugned order dated 30.01.2019 issued by the respondent no. 3.