Writ Court May Direct Divisional Commissioner to Hear PDS Selection Grievances Where Alternative Appellate Remedies Are Exhausted or Biased

The petitioner challenged the selection of Respondent No. 6 (Anil Sharma) and Respondent No. 7 (Sajia Nasrin) as Public Distribution System (PDS) dealers for Korai Panchayat, Begusarai.

The selection was made via Memo No. 2900 dated 20.09.2019 by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority.

The petitioner alleged that the selection was illegal and violated Order-11 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of alternative statutory remedies.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative remedies provided under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the District Magistrate, as the head of the Selection Committee, can act as the appellate authority to review his own selection orders.

Section 32(iii) provides for an appeal to the District Officer against orders of the licensing authority.

Section 32(v) allows the Appellate Authority to stay the operation of the impugned order; and Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against the appellate order.

The court also applied the principles of Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay.

The Court observed that the 2016 Order provides a clear hierarchy for redressal—appeal and revision.

The Court noted a procedural conflict: since the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee that made the impugned appointments, he cannot adjudicate an appeal against his own decision, as he cannot review his own orders.

Consequently, the Court determined that the appropriate forum for the petitioner’s grievance is the Divisional Commissioner.

Addressing the petitioner's concern regarding the expired limitation period, the Court invoked the principle of equity to ensure the petitioner is not left remediless due to the time spent pursuing the writ.

The petitioner was directed to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month. The Court ordered the authority to condone the delay, provide a fair hearing to the petitioner, and dispose of the matter within three months of filing.