Exhaustion of Alternative Remedy Overrides Writ Jurisdiction in Public Distribution System Licensing Disputes

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to grant him a license for a Fair Price Shop

The petitioner claimed that his candidature was ranked at Serial No. 1 in the merit list prepared by the license issuing authority in Siwan

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory alternative remedies available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

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

2. Whether the District Magistrate, as the head of the Selection Committee, is the appropriate authority to hear an appeal against the committee's own selection process?

Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, specifically Section 32(iii), which provides for an appeal to the District Officer against the denial of a license

Section 32(v), regarding stay orders during pending appeals

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act to consider the condonation of delay in filing representations

The Court observed that the 2016 Order clearly provides a tiered statutory remedy for grievances related to fair price shop licensing

While Section 32(iii) designates the District Magistrate as the appellate authority, the Court noted a procedural conflict: since the District Magistrate serves as the head of the Selection Committee, they cannot legally act as the appellate authority to review their own selection decisions

Consequently, the Court determined that the appropriate forum for the petitioner to seek relief, in this specific context, was through a complaint or representation before the Divisional Commissioner

To ensure the petitioner was not prejudiced by time spent pursuing the writ, the Court addressed the limitation concerns by directing the authority to condone the delay

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation/complaint before the Divisional Commissioner within one month

The Court ordered the concerned authority to condone the delay, provide the petitioner with a fair hearing, and dispose of the matter within three months from the date of filing

All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of