Aggrieved PDS applicants must first pursue the statutory complaint remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner, Rajiv Kumar, challenged the final selection list prepared for grant of a Public Distribution System (PDS) licence in Domuhan Panchayat, Banka. He alleged that although he was the first-ranked candidate in the provisional merit list, respondent no. 6, Gyanvati Bharti, was recommended for the licence. The petitioner sought quashing of the final selection and a direction for consideration of his candidature in accordance with the provisional merit list.

The respondents contended that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under Rule 5(iv) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, by filing a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner.

Whether the writ petition challenging the final PDS selection list was maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner under Rule 5(iv) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Whether, despite the expiry of the limitation period, the petitioner could be permitted to file a delayed complaint before the Divisional Commissioner in view of the pendency of the writ petition since 2019.

The Court applied Rule 5(iv) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which permits an aggrieved applicant to file a reasoned complaint, supported by evidence, before the Divisional Commissioner within fifteen days of publication of the final merit list; the complaint is required to be disposed of within thirty days of receipt.

The Court further applied the principle that where an effective alternative statutory remedy is available, the remedy should ordinarily be pursued before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

The reliefs sought directly challenged the recommendation contained in the final selection list, a grievance expressly covered by Rule 5(iv).

Since the Rule provided a specific mechanism for challenging the final merit list before the Divisional Commissioner, the Court held that the petitioner should first exhaust that alternative remedy rather than obtain adjudication of the merits in the writ petition.

Although the prescribed fifteen-day limitation had expired, the Court considered the fact that the writ petition had been instituted in 2019 and therefore directed that the delay be liberally condoned, preserving the petitioner’s opportunity to pursue the statutory remedy.

It disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month from receipt of the order.

The Divisional Commissioner was directed to liberally condone the delay and decide the complaint by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within three months from its filing.

All pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.