Writ petition is maintainable for direction to exhaustive alternative remedies provided under the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order.

The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, challenged the appointment and licensing of one Shailendra Kumar Ray as a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer. The petitioner alleged that the appointee submitted academic results after the application deadline, incorrectly claimed reservation in the General category, and filed objections past the prescribed period

The petitioner sought the cancellation of Ray's license and his own appointment to the vacancy, asserting he was the most eligible candidate

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

2. Whether the District Magistrate, as the head of the Selection Committee, can adjudicate an appeal against his own committee's decision

The court primarily applied the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, specifically Section 32(iii), which provides for an appeal to the District Officer against licensing decisions; Section 32(v), which governs stay orders during pendency; and Section 32(vi), which provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if an appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or if a party is aggrieved by the appellate order

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay in filing representations

The court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner fell squarely within the regulatory framework of the Control Order, 2016, which provides a tiered mechanism for grievances

While Section 32(iii) directs appeals to the District Magistrate, the court noted a procedural conflict: since the District Magistrate chaired the District Level Selection Committee that made the initial appointment, he could not legally review his own order in an appellate capacity

Consequently, to ensure an impartial remedy, the court determined that the petitioner should bypass the District Magistrate and approach the Divisional Commissioner

Furthermore, the court addressed the petitioner's concern regarding the expiry of the limitation period by invoking the principle of condoning delay to ensure the alternative remedy remains accessible

The court directed the petitioner to file a representation/complaint before the Divisional Commissioner within one month. The authority was ordered to condone the delay in filing and to dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of receipt. All pending interlocutory applications were dismissed accordingly