Availability of Alternative Statutory Remedy Precludes Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226

The petitioner, Neebha Kumari, was recommended at Serial No. 66 by the District Selection Committee on 08.02.2019 for the grant of a Public Distribution System (P.D.S.) shop license.

authorities subsequently cancelled the previous recommendation and selected Respondent No. 6 (Subhawati Kumari) for the license following a meeting on 10.10.2019.

Aggrieved by this selection and the denial of her license, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to command the licensing authority to grant her the license and to quash the selection of Respondent No. 6.

1. Whether the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, precluding the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

2. Whether the District Magistrate, as head of the Selection Committee, is the appropriate appellate authority to review his own selection orders.

Section 32(iii) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] provides that any person aggrieved by the denial or cancellation of a license may appeal to the District Officer within thirty days.

Section 32(vi) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner against an appellate order or if the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days.

The principle of Nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause) regarding the District Magistrate's role.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay.

While the Control Order, 2016 prescribes an appeal to the District Magistrate, a procedural conflict arises because the District Magistrate serves as the head of the Selection Committee that passed the impugned order.

Applying the principle that an authority cannot review its own orders in an appellate capacity, the court determined that the petitioner must instead approach the Divisional Commissioner.

The High Court can direct the manner of its exhaustion to ensure justice. Furthermore, addressing the petitioner's concern regarding the expired limitation period, the court found it equitable to direct the authorities to condone the delay since the petitioner had been pursuing the matter via a Writ Petition.

The petitioner is directed to file a complaint/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 pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.