Alternative remedy must be exhausted before the Divisional Commissioner where the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee.

The petitioner, Arun Kumar Bhandari, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the final merit list dated 28.09.2018 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhubani.

The petitioner alleged that the advertisement for a Public Distribution System (PDS) license was issued for the unreserved category, ignoring the Extremely Backward Castes (EBC) reservation.

He further claimed he was erroneously categorized as "General" despite being EBC, and that a license was maliciously allotted to Respondent No. 8 under the unreserved category despite the respondent also belonging to the EBC category.

The State contested the maintainability of the writ, arguing that statutory alternative remedies were available.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of alternative statutory remedies under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the petitioner should be granted a condonation of delay to approach the appropriate revisional authority given the lapse of the limitation period.

Section 32(iii) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] provides for an appeal to the District Officer against orders of the licensing authority.

Section 32(v) grants the Appellate Authority power to stay orders pending disposal.

Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if an appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against an appellate order.

The court also considered the principles of Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay.

The court observed that the petitioner had a clear statutory alternative remedy under the 2016 Control Order.

However, the court noted a procedural conflict: while the Act suggests an appeal to the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee and cannot legally review his own orders.

Consequently, the court determined that the petitioner should bypass the District Magistrate and file a revision/application directly before the Divisional Commissioner.

Addressing the petitioner's concern regarding the expired limitation period, the court reasoned that justice required a direction to the authority to entertain the application on its merits rather than dismissing it on technical delays, provided it is filed within a specific timeframe.

The court directed the petitioner to file a proper application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month.

It further ordered the concerned authority to condone the delay in filing and to dispose of the matter on its merits within three months from the date of filing.

All pending interlocutory applications were dismissed.