Statutory alternative remedy must be pursued before invoking writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner challenged the final selection list dated 10 July 2019, by which Respondent No. 7, Nutan Kumari, was selected for grant of a Public Distribution System (PDS) licence in Sahsi Panchayat, Block Alauli, District Khagaria.

The petitioner claimed that she was the first empanelled candidate under the earlier selection list dated 18 October 2018 and sought quashing of the final selection and a direction for grant of the licence in her favour.

During the hearing, the respondents contended that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under Rule 5(iv) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, by filing a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner.

The Court noted that the prescribed limitation period for filing such a complaint had already expired.

1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner under Rule 5(iv) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the petitioner could be permitted to invoke the statutory remedy after expiry of the prescribed limitation period.

3. Whether the Divisional Commissioner should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s delayed complaint on merits.

Rule 5(iv) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which permits an aggrieved applicant to file a reasoned complaint, supported by evidence, before the Divisional Commissioner within 15 days of publication of the final merit list; the complaint is required to be decided vacancy-wise within a maximum period of 30 days from receipt.

Where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available, it should ordinarily be pursued before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

The petitioner’s challenge concerned the selection of a PDS licensee, a matter specifically governed by Rule 5(iv), which provided a direct complaint mechanism before the Divisional Commissioner.

Since the petitioner had not first pursued that remedy, the Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the selection dispute in writ jurisdiction and directed her to approach the competent statutory authority.

Although the prescribed limitation period had expired, the Court considered that the writ petition had been instituted in 2019 and therefore directed the Divisional Commissioner to liberally condone the delay.

The Court consequently preserved the petitioner’s opportunity to obtain a decision on the merits through the statutory process.

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

The Divisional Commissioner was directed to liberally condone the delay, consider the complaint in accordance with law, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of filing.

The interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.