Divisional Commissioner to entertain PDS license grievances where District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee.

The petitioner, Eshawar Ram, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to grant him a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealership license in place of the private respondent (Respondent No. 9) and to conduct a thorough inquiry into the matter

The respondents raised a preliminary objection, contending that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory alternative remedies available under the governing Control Order

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 petitioner can be directed to approach the Divisional Commissioner given that the District Magistrate, as head of the Selection Committee, cannot review his own orders

Section 32(iii) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] provides for an appeal to the District Officer against orders denying or cancelling licenses

Section 32(v) allows for stay orders pending appeal

Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against an appellate order

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay

The Court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner fall squarely within the regulatory framework of the 2016 Control Order, which provides a tiered mechanism for grievances

While the statute typically directs the first appeal to the District Magistrate [Section 32(iii)], the Court noted a procedural conflict: since the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee that initially decides on PDS licenses, he cannot act as the appellate authority over his own decisions

Consequently, the Court determined that the appropriate forum for the petitioner's grievance is the Divisional Commissioner

Regarding the petitioner's concern over the expired limitation period, the Court invoked the principle of condonation of delay to ensure the alternative remedy remains accessible

The petitioner was directed to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month. The Court ordered the authority to condone the delay, provide an adequate hearing to both the petitioner and Respondent No. 9, and dispose of the matter within three months from the date of filing. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of