Writ Petition Disposed With Liberty to Pursue Alternative Remedy and Direction to Condone Limitation Delay

The petitioner, Priyanka Kumari, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to consider and grant her a wholesale license for a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealership

The respondents raised a preliminary objection, contending that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, provides specific statutory remedies of appeal and revision for such grievances

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 can be granted liberty to approach the revisional authority directly if the appellate authority is the head of the selection committee

Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Specifically, Section 32(iii) provides that a person aggrieved by the denial or cancellation of a license may appeal to the District Officer within thirty days

Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against the order passed in the appeal

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

The court found that the petitioner possesses an alternative remedy under the 2016 Control Order, which generally precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction

The court noted a procedural conflict: since the District Magistrate (the statutory Appellate Authority) is also the head of the Selection Committee, he cannot adjudicate an appeal against his own committee’s decision

The court logic dictated that the petitioner should bypass the District Officer and file a complaint or application directly before the Divisional Commissioner

Regarding the expired limitation period, the court determined that since the petitioner was pursuing the writ remedy, the delay should be condoned to ensure the statutory remedy remains effective

The court ordered the authority to condone the delay and dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of filing, ensuring the petitioner is granted a fair hearing

All pending interlocutory applications were consequently disposed of