Availability of Alternative Remedy under PDS Control Order Bars Writ Jurisdiction for Challenging Dealer Appointments

The petitioner, Priyanka Devi, filed a writ petition seeking to set aside the appointment of Respondent No. 8 (Shakuntla Devi) as a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer for Bihari Bigha Gram Panchayat.

The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 8 secured the appointment by submitting forged educational certificates (Matriculation, I.A., and B.A.) purportedly issued by the Bihar School Examination Board and Magadh University.

The petitioner further requested a direction for her own appointment in place of Respondent No. 8.

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the existence of alternative statutory remedies.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative remedies provided 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 statutory authority after the expiration 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 licensing decisions.

Section 32(v) allows for stay orders pending appeal and 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.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay for filing applications/appeals before authorities.

The court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner fall squarely within the regulatory framework of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides a specific mechanism for appeals and revisions.

While an appeal usually lies with the District Magistrate under Section 32(iii), the court noted a conflict of interest in this specific case: the District Magistrate, as the head of the Selection Committee that made the initial appointment, cannot review his own order in an appellate capacity.

Consequently, the court determined that the petitioner must exercise the alternative remedy by approaching the Divisional Commissioner directly.

Regarding the issue of limitation, the court found it equitable to allow the petitioner to file the complaint/application despite the elapsed time, provided it is done within a strict one-month window.

The court ordered the concerned authority to condone the delay in filing and to dispose of the matter within three months thereafter, affording the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing.