Availability of Alternative Statutory Remedy Precludes Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction in PDS Licensing Disputes

The petitioner, Vikash Kumar, challenged the selection of private Respondent No. 6 for the position of Public Distribution System (PDS) Dealer for Gram Panchayat Raj Marar Uttari, Khagaria

The petitioner contended that he was more qualified, holding a Master of Science degree with results published on 12.08.2017, prior to the notification date of 22.11.2017

He alleged that his selection was wrongfully denied based on the issuance date of his marksheet (03.05.2018) rather than the result publication date

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of a statutory alternative remedy

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

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a condonation of delay for approaching the appropriate statutory authority after the limitation period has lapsed

Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, specifically Section 32(iii), which provides for an appeal to the District Officer against licensing decisions; Section 32(v), regarding stay of orders during the pendency of an appeal; and Section 32(vi), which 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 such statutory applications

The court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner fell directly within the scope of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which mandates a specific hierarchy for grievances

While the Order suggests an appeal to the District Magistrate (DM) under Section 32(iii), the court noted a procedural conflict: since the DM acts as the head of the Selection Committee, he cannot legally review his own selection orders in an appellate capacity

To resolve this and ensure an impartial hearing, the court directed the petitioner to bypass the DM and approach the Divisional Commissioner via a complaint or application

Regarding the lapse in the limitation period, the court acknowledged the petitioner's pursuit of a writ remedy as a valid reason to exercise leniency

The petitioner was ordered to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month; the court directed the concerned authority to condone the delay, provide the petitioner a fair opportunity for a hearing, and dispose of the matter within three months from the date of filing. All pending interlocutory applications were consequently disposed of