Alternative Remedy Bars Writ Petition Against PDS License Allotment with Delay Condonation for Revision

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging Memo No-122 dated 28-11-2018 and the selection list approved by the District Selection Committee on 02-11-2018.

These orders directed the issuance of a Public Distribution System (PDS) license to private respondent No. 8 for a shop in Chandanbara Panchayat, Dhaka Sub-Division.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ, asserting that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory alternative remedies available under the governing PDS Control Order.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative statutory remedies of appeal and revision provided under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the petitioner can be granted a condonation of delay to approach the administrative authorities after the expiry of the limitation period.

Section 32(iii) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] provides that any person aggrieved by the denial or issuance of a license may appeal to the District Officer within 30 days.

Section 32(vi) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within 60 days or against an appellate order.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act to facilitate the condonation of delay for filing statutory applications.

The court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner directly fall under the regulatory framework of the 2016 Order.

While the statute suggests an appeal to the District Magistrate, the Court noted a procedural conflict: since the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee that passed the impugned order, he cannot review his own decision in an appellate capacity.

To ensure an impartial hearing, the Court directed the petitioner to bypass the District Magistrate and file a complaint/application directly before the Divisional Commissioner.

Recognizing that the limitation period for such a remedy had lapsed during the pendency of the writ, the Court determined that the delay should be condoned to meet the ends of justice.

It held that the petitioner must approach the Divisional Commissioner within one month of the order.

The Court directed the concerned authority to condone the delay and dispose of the application on its merits within three months of filing.

The writ petition and all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of with these directions.