Availability of Statutory Revisionary Remedy Precludes Writ Jurisdiction Under the Bihar PDS (Control) Order

The petitioner, Vikash Kumar, challenged the selection of Respondent No. 7 (Soni Kumari) for the grant of a Public Distribution System (PDS) license in Nadhi Panchayat, Madhepura.

The petitioner sought to quash the Final Selection Lists dated July 5, 2019, and December 11, 2018, which recommended Respondent No. 7 on the grounds that the petitioner’s godown lacked a public path.

The petitioner had previously filed a representation before the District Magistrate (Respondent No. 3), which remained undecided.

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

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

2. Whether the court should direct the Divisional Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the revision due to the lapse of the limitation period.

The court primarily applied Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Specifically, Section 32(vi) provides that a revision may be filed before the Divisional Commissioner against an order passed in appeal or due to the non-disposal of an appeal by the District Officer within sixty days.

Furthermore, the court considered the principles of Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay in the interest of justice.

The court observed that the petitioner had already filed a representation/objection before the District Magistrate, which effectively triggered the administrative process under the Control Order.

Referring to Section 32(vi), the court found that since a statutory remedy of revision before the Divisional Commissioner exists for grievances related to PDS licensing, the petitioner ought to exhaust that remedy rather than seeking extraordinary relief under writ jurisdiction.

Addressing the petitioner's concern regarding the expired limitation period, the court determined that the time spent pursuing the writ petition justified a direction to the revisional authority to entertain the matter on its merits to ensure the petitioner is not left remediless.

The court held that the Divisional Commissioner shall condone the delay in filing and must dispose of the revision petition by a reasoned order within two months from the date of filing.

All pending interlocutory applications were consequently disposed of.