PDS selection challenges must be filed before the Divisional Commissioner when the District Magistrate headed the selection committee.

The petitioner challenged the selection of Respondent No. 7, Kiran Kumari, as a Public Distribution System (“PDS”) dealer for Amritpur Gram Panchayat.

He alleged that the selection was contrary to the roster applicable when the vacancy was declared in 2018 and that his claim was ignored despite his position at the top of the merit list.

The petitioner sought cancellation of Respondent No. 7’s selection and a direction for consideration of his candidature under the earlier roster.

During the proceedings, the respondents contended that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal and revision under Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

The Court noted that an appeal ordinarily lay before the District Magistrate, but the District Magistrate was also the head of the Selection Committee in the present matter.

Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016?

Whether the petitioner could be directed to approach the Divisional Commissioner by way of a complaint/application because the District Magistrate, ordinarily the appellate authority, was also the head of the Selection Committee?

Whether the delay in filing the complaint/application should be condoned and the matter considered on merits?

The Court applied Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides an appeal to the District Officer against an order denying, refusing renewal of, or cancelling a PDS licence, ordinarily within thirty days.

Section 32(v) permits the appellate authority to stay the operation of the impugned order pending disposal of the appeal.

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

The Court also applied the principle that a writ petition may ordinarily be declined where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists, subject to the circumstances of the case.

In view of the stated delay, the Court directed condonation of the delay in filing the complaint/application before the competent authority.

The petitioner’s challenge concerned the legality of the PDS dealership selection and therefore fell within the statutory remedial framework under Section 32 of the 2016 Control Order.

Since an alternative remedy was available, the Court declined to adjudicate the selection dispute directly in writ jurisdiction.

However, the ordinary appellate remedy before the District Magistrate was considered unsuitable because the District Magistrate was the head of the Selection Committee whose decision was under challenge; consequently, the petitioner was directed to approach the Divisional Commissioner by filing a complaint/application.

Although the filing period had expired, the Court considered it appropriate to protect the petitioner’s access to the statutory remedy by directing the authority to condone the delay and decide the matter after granting a fair opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner was directed to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month from receipt of the order.

The concerned authority was directed to condone the delay, dispose of the complaint/application within three months of its filing, and provide the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing before passing any order.

All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.