The Divisional Commissioner is the appropriate authority to adjudicate grievances regarding selection of Fair Price Shop dealers.

The petitioner, Manish Kumar, challenged the selection of respondent No. 8 (Badri Prasad Yadav) for the operation of a Fair Price Shop in Gram Panchayat Suhath under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

The petitioner asserted that despite being younger (21 years old) and possessing superior qualifications, including a Matriculation certificate and a Diploma in Computer Application, the respondent-authorities selected the 57-year-old respondent No. 8.

The petitioner initially filed grievances before the District Magistrate, Saharsa, and subsequently filed an application before the Divisional Commissioner on 22.03.2019, which remained pending without resolution.

1. Whether the District Magistrate has the authority to review his own selection decision as part of the Selection Committee.

2. Whether the Divisional Commissioner is the appropriate authority to adjudicate grievances regarding the selection of a Fair Price Shop dealer.

The Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which governs the selection and licensing of Fair Price Shops.

Principle of administrative hierarchy and the availability of alternative remedies, noting that a District Magistrate, acting as a member of a Selection Committee, cannot legally review his own decision; rather, the power of review or appeal vests in the superior administrative authority, namely the Divisional Commissioner.

The Court observed that since the District Magistrate was a constituent member of the Selection Committee that appointed respondent No. 8, he was logically and legally precluded from reviewing the validity of that selection.

The Court identified that the petitioner had correctly identified the Divisional Commissioner as the competent authority by filing an application on 22.03.2019.

The Court found that the Divisional Commissioner had failed to exercise his jurisdiction by not passing any order on the said application for several years.

The Court determined that the proper course of action was not to adjudicate the merits of the selection (age vs. qualification) itself, but to compel the statutory authority to perform its duty.

The order must be passed within three months of receipt of the court's direction, provided no such order has already been issued. The Writ Petition was disposed of with these directions.