Divisional Commissioner is Competent Authority to Resolve Complaints Against PDS Selection Committee Recommendations under 2022 Amended Order.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Secretary to the Government, which rejected her representation against the selection of Respondent No. 10 (Prashant Kumar Singh) for a Public Distribution System (PDS) license.

The petitioner claimed that while her name was at serial no. 1 of the provisional seniority list, Respondent No. 10 was selected despite his application being previously rejected on 28.11.2019.

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the District Level Selection Committee's recommendation and a mandamus to issue the license in her favour.

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

1. Whether the Secretary to the Government was the competent authority to decide the petitioner's representation in light of the 2022 amendments to the Bihar PDS Control Order.

2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when a specific statutory remedy for revising Selection Committee orders exists before the Divisional Commissioner.

The court applied the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Second Amendment Order, 2022, specifically the notification dated 21.07.2022.

The rule establishes that the Divisional Commissioner is the prescribed competent authority for disposing of complaints or representations against orders passed by the District Level Selection Committee.

The court observed that the petitioner had directly approached the Principal Secretary/Secretary to the Government after obtaining liberty in a previous proceeding.

According to the statutory amendment introduced in July 2022, the Divisional Commissioner was designated as the proper forum to adjudicate grievances regarding PDS dealer selection.

Since the petitioner failed to exhaust this revised statutory remedy of revision/complaint before approaching the higher executive authority or the High Court, the court found it necessary to set aside the Secretary's order to allow the matter to be heard by the correct legal forum.

The court declined to rule on the merits of the allegations regarding the illegal selection of Respondent No. 10, leaving those factual determinations to the Divisional Commissioner.

The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks to raise all grievances against the selection of Respondent No. 10, who was ordered to pass a reasoned order within three months of receipt of the complaint.

The authority was further directed to liberally construe the limitation period regarding any filing delays and the writ petition was disposed of.