Petitioner directed to pursue PDS dealer irregularities before the Divisional Commissioner under BTSO Clause 5(iv).

The petitioner, a resident of Village Neema, District Patna, was a consumer of the Public Distribution System (PDS) shop operated by Respondent No. 6 under Licence No. 253/07.

He alleged that Respondent No. 6 was irregularly distributing essential commodities and that her son, who was allegedly involved in criminal cases, was managing the shop.

The State and Respondent No. 6 disclosed that complaints had been received regarding overcharging and short supply.

Following an inspection on 18 April 2018, the Assistant District Supply Officer reported that Respondent No. 6 was absent, her husband was operating the shop, and the stock register and other records were not produced for verification.

A show-cause notice was issued on 25 April 2018. Respondent No. 6 explained that she had been absent due to her son’s marriage and that her husband had managed the shop during that period.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Masaurhi, transferred twelve consumers to another PDS shop and, by order dated 1 July 2019, accepted Respondent No. 6’s explanation and warned her to operate the shop in accordance with the rules.

Whether the alleged irregularities by Respondent No. 6 warranted cancellation of her PDS licence and other consequential action?

Whether the petitioner could seek further consideration of his grievance before an authority other than the District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Officer, who were members of the selection committee?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to invoke the complaint mechanism under Clause 5(iv) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System Order, 2016 (BTSO, 2016)?

The Court applied the administrative and statutory grievance mechanism under Clause 5(iv) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System Order, 2016, under which complaints concerning PDS-related irregularities may be considered by the Divisional Commissioner.

The Court also applied the principle that where the authorities have conducted an enquiry and taken a decision, a further grievance should ordinarily be pursued before the competent statutory or administrative authority, particularly where the officers earlier involved are members of the selection committee.

No judicial precedent was relied upon in the judgment.

The Court noted that the complaints against Respondent No. 6 had not been ignored: an inspection was conducted, a report was submitted, a show-cause notice was issued, and Respondent No. 6’s explanation was considered.

The authorities also transferred twelve consumers and issued a warning to Respondent No. 6.

Although the petitioner continued to allege irregularities and claimed that he had not been transferred, the Court did not itself determine whether the licence should be cancelled.

Since the District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Officer were members of the selection committee, the Court considered the Divisional Commissioner to be the appropriate authority for an independent consideration of the petitioner’s grievance under Clause 5(iv) of the BTSO, 2016.

Given that the writ petition had been filed in 2019, the Court directed that the limitation issue be construed liberally.

The petitioner was directed to file a complaint under Clause 5(iv) of the BTSO, 2016 before the Divisional Commissioner within one month of receiving the order.

The Divisional Commissioner was directed to consider all relevant documents and grounds and dispose of the complaint in accordance with law within three months of its filing.

The limitation issue was to be considered liberally.