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

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the selection of Respondent No. 8 for a Public Distribution Dealership in Gram Panchayat Dakshini Barawn, Block Nokha, Rohtas.

The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 8 obtained the dealership using fraudulent matriculation certificates, claiming he passed the examination in two different years by altering his and his parents' names.

The petitioner sought an inquiry into these certificates and a direction to be placed at Serial No. 1 of the merit list.

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the existence 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 can be granted liberty to approach the departmental authorities despite the expiry of the limitation period.

Section 32(iii) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] provides for an appeal to the District Officer against orders of the licensing authority 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 an appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against an appellate order.

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

The court found that the petitioner had a clear alternative remedy under the 2016 Control Order.

While Section 32(iii) directs appeals to the District Magistrate, the court observed that since the District Magistrate serves as the head of the Selection Committee, he cannot review his own selection orders in an appellate capacity.

The court determined that the appropriate forum for the petitioner's grievance was the Divisional Commissioner.

Addressing the petitioner's concern regarding the expired limitation period for filing such a challenge, the court exercised its discretion to ensure the petitioner is not left remediless due to the time spent pursuing the writ.

The petitioner was directed to file a representation/complaint before the Divisional Commissioner within one month; the authority was directed to condone the delay in filing and dispose of the matter within three months after providing a fair opportunity for a hearing.

All pending interlocutory applications were dismissed.