Writ Petition Disposed of with Direction to Exhaust Statutory Alternative Remedy Under PDS Control Order

The petitioner, Mamta Devi, challenged an order dated 05.07.2019 (Memo No. 573) passed by the District Level Selection Committee, Madhepura, which granted a Public Distribution System (P.D.S.) license to private respondent no. 6

The petitioner alleged that the license was issued without considering her case or deciding her pending objection petition, which she claimed violated the principles of natural justice

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory alternative remedies available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

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

2. Whether the petitioner can be granted a condonation of delay to approach the concerned revisional authority due to the expiry of the limitation period during the pendency of the writ

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 the denial or cancellation of licenses

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 order passed in the appeal

The court also invoked the principle underlying Section 5 of the Limitation Act to allow for the condonation of delay in filing statutory applications when a party has been pursuing a remedy in another forum

The court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner fell squarely within the ambit of the alternative remedies provided by the 2016 Control Order

the court noted that since the District Magistrate is also the head of the Selection Committee that passed the impugned order, he cannot review his own orders in an appeal. Consequently, to ensure an impartial adjudication, the court directed the petitioner to bypass the appellate stage and file a complaint/application directly before the Divisional Commissioner (the revisional authority)

Regarding the lapse of the limitation period, the court found it appropriate to direct the authority to condone the delay, as the petitioner had been actively litigating the matter before the High Court

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month. The Court ordered the concerned authority to condone the delay, provide a fair opportunity for a hearing, and dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of filing