Alternative statutory remedy bars writ intervention; delayed representation must be entertained and decided.

The petitioner applied for a licence to operate a Public Distribution System (PDS) fair-price shop for Village Lanjo.

The Block Development Officer, Kako, rejected his application by order dated 12 July 2018, stating that the petitioner had applied for Village Lodipur, whereas applications had been invited for Village Lanjo.

The petitioner contended that the two names referred to the same village, recorded as “Lodipur (Lanjo).”

He also challenged the recommendation of Respondent No. 5, alleging that Respondent No. 5 lacked the required computer certificate and did not satisfy the eligibility criteria.

The respondents raised the objection that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal and revision under Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a delayed representation/appeal before the competent authority, with the delay being considered for condonation.

The Court applied Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides a statutory appeal to the District Officer against an order denying the issue or renewal of a PDS licence or cancelling such licence, ordinarily within thirty days of receipt of the order.

Section 32(v) empowers the appellate authority to suspend the operation of the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal, while Section 32(vi) provides for revision before the Divisional Commissioner where the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against the appellate order.

The Court followed the principle that a writ petition ordinarily should not be entertained where an effective alternative statutory remedy is available, while permitting the competent authority to consider condonation of delay in an appropriate case.

The reliefs sought directly challenged the BDO’s rejection of the petitioner’s PDS licence application and the recommendation of Respondent No. 5, matters falling within the statutory appellate framework under Section 32 of the 2016 Control Order.

Since the petitioner had an alternative remedy, the Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the competing claims in writ jurisdiction.

Although the prescribed period for pursuing the statutory remedy had expired, the petitioner expressed his intention to approach the competent authority and sought consideration of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

In the interests of permitting adjudication through the prescribed statutory mechanism, the Court directed the petitioner to file the representation within four weeks and directed the authority to condone the delay and decide the matter within the stipulated period.

The petitioner was directed to file his representation before the concerned authority within four weeks from receipt of the order.

The authority was directed to condone the delay in filing and dispose of the representation within three months from the date of filing.

The interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.