Writ Petition Dismissed for Alternative Remedy; Petitioner Directed to File Complaint/Revision Before Divisional Commissioner.

The petitioner, Shambhu Mandal, filed a writ petition challenging the Final Selection List for a Fair Price Shop (PDS) License in Bilauri Panchayat, Lakhisarai.

The petitioner specifically contested the selection of Respondent No. 5 (Lakshaman Kumar) to grant a license in Kurauta village, alleging that the selection committee failed to consider an inquiry report submitted by the Block Supply Officer regarding objections filed by the petitioner.

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

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

2. Whether a petitioner can be directed to approach the Divisional Commissioner when the primary Appellate Authority (District Magistrate) is also the Chairman of the Selection Committee that passed the impugned order.

The court applied the provisions of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Specifically, Section 32(iii) provides for an appeal to the District Officer against licensing decisions within thirty days; Section 32(v) allows the Appellate Authority to grant stay orders; and Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if an appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against an appellate order.

The court also applied the principles of natural justice regarding administrative bias (nemo judex in causa sua), noting that a District Magistrate cannot review their own order passed as head of a Selection Committee, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay.

The Court observed that the relief sought—challenging a selection list for a PDS license—falls squarely within the regulatory framework of the 2016 Order, which provides specific machinery for appeals and revisions.

The Court identified a procedural conflict: since the District Magistrate chairs the District Level Selection Committee (Respondent No. 2), he cannot act as the Appellate Authority to review his own selection decisions.

To resolve this and ensure an impartial hearing, the Court directed the petitioner to bypass the District Magistrate and file a complaint/application directly before the Divisional Commissioner.

Furthermore, acknowledging that the statutory limitation period had lapsed while the writ was pending, the Court determined that the delay should be condoned to ensure the petitioner is not left without a remedy.

The Court directed the petitioner to file the complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month. The authority was ordered to condone the delay in filing and to dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of the filing date. All pending interlocutory applications were dismissed.