Alternative Remedy under Control Order Precludes Writ Jurisdiction; Divisional Commissioner to Adjudicate Due to Conflict of Interest

The petitioner challenged the selection and licensing of Respondent No. 6 for a Fair Price Shop on compassionate grounds. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 6 obtained the license by submitting fabricated documents regarding the age of the deceased licensee to meet the eligibility criteria under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

specifically, the petitioner sought to quash the District Selection Committee’s recommendation dated 11.06.2022 and the subsequent license issuance by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 09.09.2022

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative statutory remedies available under the Control Order, 2016

2. Which authority is competent to hear the grievance when the typical appellate authority (District Magistrate) presided over the initial Selection Committee

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

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 invoked Section 5 of the Limitation Act to allow for the condonation of delay in approaching the statutory authority

The court observed that the Control Order, 2016, provides a specific hierarchy for redressal of grievances. While Section 32(iii) normally designates the District Magistrate as the appellate authority, the court noted a procedural conflict: the District Magistrate had chaired the Selection Committee that made the contested recommendation

Applying the principle that one cannot review their own order in an appellate capacity, the court determined that the petitioner should bypass the District Magistrate and apply directly to the Divisional Commissioner

the court acknowledged the petitioner’s concern regarding the expiry of the limitation period and held that the time spent pursuing the writ petition should be considered for condonation of delay

The petitioner was directed to file a proper application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month. The court ordered the concerned authority to condone the delay and dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of filing. All interlocutory applications were closed