Writ Petition Disposed of with Direction to Exhaust Statutory Alternative Remedy in PDS Licensing Dispute

The petitioner, Sangita Kumari, challenged the final selection list and recommendation (issued by respondent nos. 2 to 4) granting a PDS (Public Distribution System) license in Itahari Panchayat to respondent no. 6

The petitioner’s candidature was rejected on the ground that a flour mill was being operated in her house

The petitioner sought quashing of the selection list, a fresh inquiry into the flour mill allegation, and a direction to grant her the license as per the provisional merit list

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

2. Whether the petitioner should be granted a condonation of delay for approaching the statutory appellate/revisional authority after the limitation period had expired

Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Specifically, Section 32(iii) provides for an appeal to the District Officer against the denial of a license; Section 32(v) allows the Appellate Authority to stay the impugned order; and Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against an appellate order.

Legal principles concerning the exhaustion of alternative remedies and Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delays in pursuing statutory reliefs.

The court observed that the petitioner sought reliefs that were covered by the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which mandates specific administrative remedies.

Although the typical first step is an appeal to the District Magistrate, the court noted that since the District Magistrate presided over the Selection Committee that rejected the petitioner, he cannot act as the appellate authority to review his own decision. Consequently, the court determined that the proper course of action was for the petitioner to approach the Divisional Commissioner.

Regarding the expired limitation period, the court recognized that the petitioner had been pursuing the matter via a writ petition and thus directed the concerned authority to exercise leniency per the principles of the Limitation Act.

The petitioner was directed to file a proper application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month from the receipt of the order. The court further ordered the authority to condone the delay and dispose of the application on its merits within three months of filing. All pending interlocutory applications were likewise disposed of.