Patna High Court
Administrative and Public LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Aggrieved PDS applicants must pursue the available statutory complaint remedy before seeking writ relief.

Lalita Devi vs The State of Bihar

Patna High CourtJUDGMENT: September 30, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Aggrieved PDS applicants must pursue the available statutory complaint remedy before seeking writ relief.. Lalita Devi vs The State of Bihar. Patna High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner challenged the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order dated 20 January 2022, which ceased her PDS licence, No. 01/2020, and sought restoration of allocation to her shop.

Source reference: p. 1

The respondents submitted that Rule 5(iv) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provided a complaint remedy before the Divisional Commissioner.

Source reference: p. 2

The High Court disposed of the writ petition on the basis that the petitioner should pursue that alternative remedy, while noting that the prescribed limitation period had expired.

Source reference: pp. 3–4
02

Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should first pursue the alternative complaint remedy under Rule 5(iv) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, rather than obtain relief through the writ petition.

Source reference: pp. 2–4

2. Whether the Divisional Commissioner could consider a complaint filed after the prescribed limitation period had expired.

Source reference: pp. 3–4
03

Law Applied

Rule 5(iv) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 permits an aggrieved applicant to complain to the Divisional Commissioner against a recommendation embodied in the published final merit list, within 15 days and with reasons and evidence; it requires disposal of complaints within a maximum of 30 days from receipt.

Source reference: p. 2

The Court applied the principle that an available statutory or prescribed alternative remedy should ordinarily be pursued before approaching the Court.

Source reference: p. 3
04

Reasoning

The Court considered the remedy under Rule 5(iv) an available alternative and held that it should be pursued in the first instance.

Source reference: p. 3

Although the time limit for filing had expired, the writ petition had been filed in 2022; the Court therefore directed the Divisional Commissioner to liberally condone the delay and decide the complaint on its merits by a reasoned order.

Source reference: pp. 3–4
05

Holding

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty and a direction to the petitioner to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month of receiving the order.

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

Source reference: pp. 3–4
Patna High Court

Original Court PDF

Lalita DevivsThe State of Bihar

Patna High Court · September 30, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment