Availability of alternative statutory remedy under PDS Control Order 2016 bars exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The four petitioners, belonging to the "Lohar" caste, applied for Public Distribution System (PDS) shop licenses under an advertisement when their caste was categorized as Scheduled Tribe (ST).

During the selection process, the Lohar caste was reclassified as Extremely Backward Caste (EBC). Consequently, the petitioners were excluded from the final merit list.

They filed this writ petition seeking a direction to be included in the merit list based on the reservation policy existing at the time of the advertisement, arguing that selection rules should not be changed mid-way.

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 petitioners are entitled to be considered under the ST category for PDS licenses despite the change in caste categorization during the selection process.

Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides for an appeal to the District Officer against orders denying a license; Section 32(v) regarding stay of orders; and Section 32(vi), which provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner.

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

The court did not adjudicate the merits of the petitioners' claim regarding the change in reservation status; instead, the court focused on the exhaustion of alternative remedies.

Since the District Magistrate (District Officer) serves as the head of the Selection Committee, he cannot act as an appellate authority to review his own selection decisions.

To resolve this and ensure the petitioners have access to the statutory remedy provided under the 2016 Order, the court directed the petitioners to bypass the District Magistrate and approach the Divisional Commissioner directly.

The court noted the petitioners' concern regarding the expiry of the limitation period and determined that the delay should be condoned to ensure a fair hearing on the merits.

The Court directed the petitioners to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month; the authority was ordered to condone the delay, provide a fair hearing, and dispose of the matter within three months.

All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.