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

The petitioner, Sadhna Kumari, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the Respondent authorities to publish a fresh final merit list for a Public Distribution System (PDS) license in Gram Panchayat Rasalpur Purushottam, Vaishali.

The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 5 (Sarita Devi) was fraudulently included at the top of the merit list under the Backward Class category by submitting her graduation and caste certificates after the initial application phase/during verification.

The petitioner had submitted an objection to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua, on February 23, 2023, which was allegedly not examined before the final merit list was published.

1. Whether the petitioner possesses an alternative statutory remedy under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, precluding the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

2. Whether the Divisional Commissioner is the appropriate authority to hear the grievance given that the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee.

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 regarding license issuance; Section 32(v) allows for stay orders pending appeal; 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.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay for filing statutory applications.

The Court observed that while the Control Order, 2016, provides a remedy via appeal to the District Magistrate, a unique procedural conflict exists because the District Magistrate also heads the Selection Committee.

The District Magistrate cannot effectively review his own selection decisions in an appellate capacity; consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner must approach the Divisional Commissioner by way of a complaint or application to ensure an impartial review.

Regarding the lapse of the limitation period during the pendency of the writ, the Court reasoned that the delay should be condoned to allow the case to be heard on its merits rather than being dismissed on technical grounds.

The Court ordered the concerned authority to condone the delay, provide a fair hearing to the petitioner, issue notice to Respondent No. 5, and dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of filing.