Writ Petition Disposed of with Direction to Exhaust Alternative Statutory Remedy Before the Divisional Commissioner.

The petitioner, an intermediate-qualified woman from a backward class, filed a writ petition challenging the District Level Selection Committee's decision to reject her application for a Public Distribution System (PDS) license and recommending Respondent No. 7 instead

The petitioner sought a direction to the District Magistrate for the grant of the license based on her eligibility and appropriate site documentation

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner had not exhausted available statutory remedies

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 petitioner should be granted a condonation of delay for approaching the appellate/revisional authority after the expiration of the limitation period

Section 32(iii) provides for an appeal to the District Officer against orders denying the issuance of a license

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 invoked principles under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to ensure the petitioner is not left remediless due to the passage of time during the pendency of the writ

The Court observed that the Petitioner clearly possessed alternative remedies under the 2016 Control Order

While Section 32(iii) usually directs an appeal to the District Magistrate, the Court noted that since the District Magistrate headed the Selection Committee that passed the impugned order, he could not legally review his own decision

The Court determined that the appropriate forum for the petitioner's grievance is the Divisional Commissioner

Recognizing that the limitation period for such a filing had lapsed while the petitioner was pursuing the writ, the Court reasoned that interests of justice required a direction to the authority to condone the delay provided the application is filed within a specific timeframe

The Court ordered the concerned authority to condone the delay, provide an adequate hearing to all stakeholders, and dispose of the matter within three months of filing. All pending interlocutory applications were dismissed