Availability of statutory alternative remedy bars writ jurisdiction in disputes relating to PDS license selection.

The petitioner, Nand Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging the final selection list for PDS (Public Distribution System) dealership licenses in Araria, Bihar.

The petitioner had been included in the provisional list under the unreserved category but was replaced in the final list by Respondent No. 7 (Shweta Kumari), who was selected under the unreserved female category.

The petitioner sought a declaration of his selection and the setting aside of Respondent No. 7’s selection.

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

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

2. Whether the petitioner can be granted relief regarding the condonation of delay for filing an appeal/representation before the appropriate authority.

The court applied the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, specifically Section 32(iii), which provides for an appeal to the District Officer within thirty days against orders of the licensing authority.

Section 32(vi), which provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner.

The court referenced Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay in filing representations or appeals.

The court observed that the petitioner sought reliefs involving the selection process of a PDS dealership, for which a specific statutory mechanism is provided under the 2016 Control Order.

While Section 32(iii) directs appeals to the District Magistrate, the court noted that since the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee, he cannot review his own orders in an appellate capacity.

The court determined that the petitioner should instead approach the Divisional Commissioner.

Addressing the petitioner's concern regarding the expired limitation period, the court found it appropriate to direct the authority to entertain the matter on its merits, provided the representation is filed within a specific timeframe.

The court directed the petitioner to file a representation/complaint before the Divisional Commissioner within one month of the order and ordered the concerned authority to condone the delay, provide the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing, and dispose of the matter within three months of filing.

All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.