Writ Petition Dismissed for Alternative Remedy with Direction to Condone Limitation for Filing Complaint

The petitioner, Md. Akbar, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to command respondent authorities to select him for a Public Distribution System (PDS) shop license.

He challenged the selection of private respondent No. 8 (Md. Saddam Hussain), alleging that the selection was erroneous as the petitioner was a more deserving candidate meeting all criteria under the advertisement, while the private respondent was "inferior".

During the hearing, the Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ due to the availability of statutory alternative remedies under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

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

2. Whether the court should condone the limitation period for the petitioner to approach the appropriate executive authority.

Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority regarding the issuance or cancellation of a license may appeal to the District Officer within thirty days.

Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or if a party is aggrieved by the appellate order.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay in filing such applications.

The Court observed that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner—namely the cancellation of a license and the issuance of a new one—fall squarely within the regulatory framework of the 2016 Control Order.

While the statute suggests an appeal to the District Magistrate, the Court noted a procedural conflict: since the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee, he cannot effectively review his own orders in an appeal.

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

Regarding the lapse of the limitation period, the Court found it equitable to allow the petitioner to approach the authority despite the delay, provided the filing occurs within a specified timeframe.

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

All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.