Where the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee, a PDS license challenge lies directly before the Divisional Commissioner.

The petitioner challenged Memo No. 719 dated 20.08.2019, which selected Respondent No. 4 as a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer for Gram Panchayat Raj Baghai, Sitamarhi

The petitioner, placed at Serial No. 1 in the merit list, alleged that the selection of Respondent No. 4 (Serial No. 2) was improper because Respondent No. 4’s husband was allegedly an educated unemployed person while her father-in-law was in government service, and she had applied for multiple locations in violation of guidelines

Following an objection by Respondent No. 4 against the petitioner (alleging the petitioner's father-in-law was a PDS dealer), the Selection Committee, headed by the District Magistrate, recommended Respondent No. 4

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy

1. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable in light of the alternative remedies available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

2. Whether the District Magistrate can act as an appellate authority for a selection process in which he presided over the Selection Committee

Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Specifically, Section 32(iii) provides for an appeal to the District Officer against licensing orders; Section 32(v) allows for stay orders during pendency; and Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner against appellate orders or in cases of non-disposal

The court also applied the principles of natural justice and Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay for statutory representations

The Court observed that while Section 32(iii) designates the District Magistrate as the appellate authority, he also serves as the head of the Selection Committee that passed the impugned order

Applying the principle that one cannot review their own order in an appellate capacity, the Court determined that the petitioner should bypass the District Magistrate and approach the higher authority

Since the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy (revision/complaint), the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction on the merits, instead directing the petitioner to exhaust the administrative remedy before the Divisional Commissioner

It directed the petitioner to file a representation/complaint before the Divisional Commissioner within one month. The Court further directed the authority to condone any delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and to dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of filing.