Writ petition is maintainable for direction to statutory authority despite alternative remedy when original order-maker is appellate authority.

The petitioner, Nitish Kumar Singh, challenged the decision of the Collector, Siwan, dated July 13, 2018, which selected Respondent No. 6 (Kundan Kumar Singh) for the appointment/allotment of a Public Distribution System (PDS) shop.

The petitioner contended that he possessed higher marks in his B.A. and Computer Course and should have been prioritized for the appointment

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner had failed to exhaust the statutory alternative remedies available under the governing 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 District Magistrate, as head of the Selection Committee, is the appropriate authority to hear an appeal against his own selection order

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; Section 32(v) allows the Appellate Authority to grant stay orders; and Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or if a party is aggrieved by the appellate order

The court applied the principle of Nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause), noting that since the District Magistrate headed the Selection Committee, he could not act as the appellate authority for his own decision

The Court observed that the petitioner sought to set aside an administrative selection process for which a specific statutory grievance redressal mechanism exists under the 2016 Control Order

the Court noted a procedural conflict: the District Magistrate (Respondent No. 3), who chaired the Selection Committee that passed the impugned order, is also the designated Appellate Authority under the rules.

To reconcile this and ensure a fair hearing, the Court determined that the petitioner should bypass the District Magistrate and approach the Divisional Commissioner directly by way of a complaint/application

Regarding the expiration of the limitation period, the Court invoked the spirit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to ensure the petitioner's right to a remedy was not extinguished while pursuing the writ before the High Court

The petitioner was directed to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month

The Court ordered the authority to condone the delay in filing, provide an adequate hearing to all stakeholders, and dispose of the matter within three months from the date of filing. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of