Statutory Alternative Remedy Mandates Exhaustion Before Writ Jurisdiction Despite Participation of Appellate Authority in Selection Process.

The petitioner, Vivek Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking the issuance of a Public Distribution System (PDS) license in his name, as he was listed in the selection list dated July 27, 2018

He further sought the cancellation of a PDS license allegedly issued to a private respondent (Respondent No. 4) in his place

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ, contending that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory alternative remedies available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek a writ of mandamus when statutory alternative remedies of appeal and revision are available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016?

2. Whether the High Court can direct an authority to condone the limitation period for filing a statutory complaint/application if the delay was due to the pendency of the writ petition?

The court primarily applied Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, specifically Clause (iii) which provides for an appeal to the District Officer against orders of the licensing authority, and Clause (vi) which provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner

Furthermore, the court applied the principle of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the condonation of delay for sufficient cause

The court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner fell squarely within the scope of the statutory remedies provided by the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

While the standard appellate authority under Section 32(iii) is the District Magistrate, the court noted that since the District Magistrate serves as the head of the Selection Committee whose list was in question, he cannot review his own administrative decisions in an appellate capacity

Consequently, the court determined that the appropriate forum for the petitioner's grievance is the Divisional Commissioner

Addressing the petitioner's concern regarding the expiry of the limitation period, the court recognized the necessity of providing an avenue for relief given the time spent in litigation

The court held that since the petitioner was pursuing an alternative remedy, the authority concerned must condone the delay in filing

The authority was further directed to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of filing

All interlocutory applications were dismissed