Writ Petition Disposed of Directing Exhaustion of Alternative Statutory Remedy for PDS License Grievances

The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging the final selection list for PDS (Public Distribution System) licenses in Panchveer Panchayat, Begusarai.

He specifically sought to quash the recommendation of respondent no. 6 for a license, alleging that the authorities failed to decide on objections he and other villagers submitted on 22.11.2018.

The petitioner sought a fresh consideration for the grant of the license in his favor.

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ due to the availability of statutory alternative 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 petitioner is entitled to a condonation of delay for filing a representation/application before the appropriate authority after the expiry of the limitation period.

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 renewal of a license may appeal to the District Officer.

Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against an order passed in the appeal.

The court acknowledged the principle of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to ensure access to justice when a party has been pursuing a remedy in the wrong forum.

The Court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner fall directly within the ambit of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which establishes a clear hierarchy for appeals and revisions.

The Court noted a procedural conflict: since the District Magistrate acts as the Chairman of the District Level Selection Committee (the body that made the initial decision), he cannot effectively sit in appeal over his own order.

The Court determined that the petitioner should bypass the District Magistrate and approach the Divisional Commissioner directly.

Addressing the petitioner's concern regarding the expired limitation period, the Court reasoned that since the matter was pending before the High Court, the delay ought to be condoned to allow the statutory authority to hear the grievance on its merits.

The Court directed the petitioner to file a representation or application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month.

It further ordered the authority to condone the delay in filing and to dispose of the matter within three months, ensuring the petitioner is given a fair opportunity of hearing.

All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.