Petitioner must exhaust alternative remedy by filing complaint before Divisional Commissioner despite selection committee hierarchy.

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the selection of Respondents No. 7 to 10 as Public Distribution System (PDS) dealers in Phuladh Gram Panchayat

The petitioner alleged that the selection process was flawed because the authorities ignored the 2018 reservation roster—on which the advertisement was initially based—and instead applied a modified roster at the conclusion of the process in 2023

Procedurally, 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 existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal and revision under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

The Court relied on Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

Specifically, Section 32(iii) provides that any person aggrieved by the denial of a license may appeal to the District Officer

Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or if the party is aggrieved by the appellate order

The Court also invoked Section 5 of the Limitation Act to allow for the condonation of delay in filing such statutory applications

The Court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner—namely the cancellation of the selection process and the grant of a PDS license—squarely fall within the ambit of the Control Order of 2016

While the standard appellate authority is the District Magistrate, the Court noted that since the District Magistrate serves as the head of the Selection Committee, he cannot review his own administrative decisions in an appellate capacity

Consequently, to ensure an impartial hearing, the Court determined that the petitioner should bypass the District Magistrate and file a complaint or application directly before the Divisional Commissioner

Addressing the petitioner's concern regarding the expiry of the limitation period, the Court dictated that the delay should be condoned to ensure the petitioner is not left without a remedy due to the time spent pursuing the writ

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month

The Court ordered the authority to condone any delay, provide a fair hearing, and dispose of the matter within three months of filing

All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly