Mandatory Exhaustion of Alternative Statutory Remedies Before Invoking Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226

The petitioner, Lal Babu Sah, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the selection of Private Respondent No. 7 (Manju Kumari) and the subsequent grant of a Fair Price Shop license (Licence No. 11/18-19) in Gisara village, Sitamarhi.

The petitioner contended that the shop was reserved for the Extremely Backward Class (EBC) category and that he was a more qualified, local, unemployed youth entitled to the license under Roster No. 14.

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 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 available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016?

2. Whether the court should condone the delay in filing the statutory appeal/revision due to the time spent pursuing the writ remedy?

The court primarily applied Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Specifically, Section 32(iii) provides for an appeal to the District Officer against orders of the licensing authority; Section 32(v) allows for stay orders during pendency; and Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if an appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against the appellate order.

The court also invoked Section 5 of the Limitation Act to address the expiration of the limitation period for filing such statutory applications.

The court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner regarding the allotment and licensing of the Fair Price Shop fall squarely within the regulatory framework of the 2016 Order.

While an appeal usually lies with the District Magistrate under Section 32(iii), the court noted a procedural conflict: as the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee, he cannot review his own selection orders.

Consequently, the court determined that the appropriate forum for the petitioner's grievance is a complaint or application before the Divisional Commissioner.

Addressing the petitioner's concern regarding the lapsed limitation period, the court reasoned that since the petitioner was bona fide litigating before the High Court, the delay ought to be condoned to ensure the alternative remedy remains efficacious.

The court held that the petitioner must file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month.

The court ordered the concerned authority to condone the delay in filing and to dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of the filing date.

All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.