Writ petition for PDS dealership appointment dismissed for availability of alternative statutory remedy of revision.

The petitioner, Indrabhushan Singh, applied for appointment as a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer for Panchayat Naula, Block-Birpur, Begusarai, on August 7, 2017

He filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him regardless of his age, asserting that neither Advertisement No. 01/2017-18 nor the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, prescribes an age bar

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 Control Order

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

2. Whether the court should condone the limitation period for the petitioner to approach the appropriate statutory authority

The court applied Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Specifically, Section 32(iii) provides for an appeal to the District Magistrate against orders denying or cancelling a license

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

Furthermore, the court acknowledged the principle of Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay in filing applications

The Court observed that the petitioner sought relief specifically covered by the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which contains a dedicated framework for appeals and revisions

While Section 32(iii) designates the District Magistrate as the appellate authority, the Court noted that since the District Magistrate is also the head of the Selection Committee, he cannot review his own administrative decisions in an appellate capacity

Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner must approach the Divisional Commissioner—the revisional authority—to seek relief

Addressing the petitioner's concern regarding the expiry of the limitation period, the Court found it equitable to allow the petitioner to file an application within a set timeframe, directing the authority to condone the delay given the pending litigation

The Court held that the petitioner must file a proper application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month from the date of receipt of the order

The concerned authority was directed to condone the delay in filing and to dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of the filing date. All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly