Writ Petition Entertained with Direction to Exhaust Alternative Statutory Remedy Under PDS Control Order, 2016

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the cancellation of the Public Distribution System (PDS) License (No. 43/2016) held by Respondent No. 5, Shiv Narayan Yadav.

The petitioner alleged that the respondent violated Schedule 28 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, by continuing to operate the shop despite having a criminal history.

During the proceedings, the State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ, noting that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory alternative remedies available under the Control Order.

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 court should condone the delay for the petitioner to approach the appropriate administrative authority.

The court applied Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Specifically, Section 32(iii) provides for an appeal before the District Officer against orders of the licensing authority.

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.

The court also referenced Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay in filing statutory applications.

The court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner fall squarely within the regulatory framework of the 2016 Control Order, which offers a structured mechanism for grievances.

While the standard remedy is an appeal to the District Magistrate, the court noted that since the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee, he cannot review his own selection orders in an appellate capacity.

Consequently, the court reasoned that the petitioner should instead file a complaint or application before the Divisional Commissioner.

Regarding the lapsed limitation period, the court found it equitable to allow the petitioner to approach the concerned authority, directing that the delay be condoned to ensure the matter is heard on its merits rather than dismissed on technicalities.

The court held that the authority must condone the delay in filing and is mandated to dispose of the application within three months from the date of filing.

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.