Availability of Alternative Statutory Remedy Precludes Writ Jurisdiction Under Targeted Public Distribution System Control Orders

The petitioner, Rubi Kumari, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a decision dated 19.12.2018 made by the District Selection Committee, headed by the District Magistrate of Lakhisarai.

The impugned decision granted a Public Distribution System (PDS) shop license to Respondent No. 5, Ranjita Kumari.

The petitioner further sought a direction for the authorities to grant the license to her after a proper inquiry.

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner had not exhausted available statutory remedies.

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 District Magistrate, as the head of the Selection Committee, can act as the appellate authority for a decision he participated in.

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

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

Nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause), noting that the District Magistrate cannot review his own orders in an appeal.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay for filing statutory applications.

The court observed that while Section 32(iii) designates the District Magistrate as the appellate authority, in this specific case, the District Magistrate presided over the Selection Committee that issued the impugned order.

The court reasoned that the petitioner could not be expected to seek a remedy from the same authority that passed the order.

The court noted that the existence of an alternative remedy—the revisional jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner under Section 32(vi)—precluded the immediate exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The court noted that although the statutory limitation period for such a remedy had lapsed during the pendency of the writ, the interests of justice required allowing the petitioner to approach the proper forum with a condonation of delay.

The court directed the petitioner to file said application within one month and ordered the concerned authority to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and to dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of filing.