Existence of Alternative Remedy Mandates Exhaustion of Statutory Appeals Before Seeking Extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction

The petitioner, Rajnish Bharti, challenged the selection of Respondent No. 12 as a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer for Gram Panchayat Ghoghasam, District Saharsa

The selection was made by the District Level Selection Committee on September 14, 2019

The petitioner sought the cancellation of Respondent No. 12’s license and a direction for her own appointment, asserting her superior suitability as a graduate candidate

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of alternative statutory remedies under the applicable Control Order

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

2. Whether the petitioner should be directed to approach the Divisional Commissioner instead of the District Magistrate for relief

The court primarily applied the provisions of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Specifically, Section 32(iii) provides for an appeal to the District Officer (District Magistrate) against orders concerning license issuance or cancellation

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

Additionally, the court applied the principle of natural justice regarding administrative bias, noting that since the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee, he cannot review his own decisions in an appellate capacity

Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also considered regarding the condonation of delay in filing representations

The court observed that while the 2016 Control Order prescribes the District Magistrate as the appellate authority, a conflict of interest exists because the District Magistrate acts as the Chairman of the District Level Selection Committee that made the impugned decision

Consequently, the court reasoned that the petitioner could not be expected to seek an appeal from the same authority that passed the selection order

However, the court found that the existence of a statutory hierarchy (Appeal and Revision) under Section 32 of the Control Order meant the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy

To bridge the procedural gap caused by the District Magistrate’s conflict of interest, the court directed the petitioner to approach the next higher authority, the Divisional Commissioner, and addressed the issue of the expired limitation period by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act

It held that the petitioner must exhaust alternative remedies by filing a representation/application before the Divisional Commissioner

The court directed the petitioner to file this representation within one month and ordered the concerned authority to condone the delay and dispose of the matter on merits within three months of filing

All pending interlocutory applications were simultaneously disposed of