Existence of alternative remedy under PDS Control Order mandates exhaustion of statutory appeal before invoking writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner challenged the Final Selection List for the Maheshleta Panchayat regarding the grant of a Public Distribution System (PDS) License to Respondent No. 5

The petitioner contended that he possessed higher qualifications than Respondent No. 5 and should have been selected instead

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 despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

2. Whether the District Magistrate can hear an appeal against an order passed by a Selection Committee which he himself heads

Section 32(iii) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] provides for an appeal to the District Officer against licensing decisions

Section 32(vi) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if an appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against an appellate order

legal principle that an authority cannot act as an appellate body over its own decisions when it functions as the head of the selection committee

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

The court found that the petitioner sought relief which is covered under the statutory framework of the 2016 Order, indicating the presence of an alternative remedy

since the District Magistrate is the head of the District Level Selection Committee, he cannot legally review his own selection orders in an appellate capacity

the court determined that the appropriate forum for the petitioner’s grievance is the Divisional Commissioner

Regarding the lapse of the limitation period during the pendency of the writ, the court reasoned that the interest of justice required a direction to the authority to entertain the application if filed within a specific timeframe

The Court directed the petitioner to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month from the receipt of the order. The authority was ordered to condone the delay in filing and dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of filing.

All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly