Writ petition is not maintainable when alternative statutory remedy of revision before Divisional Commissioner is available.

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the final selection list for the grant of a Public Distribution System (PDS) license in Dhorgaon Panchayat, Madhepura

The petitioner alleged that the selection of respondent no. 6 was recommended without deciding the objections filed by the petitioner on September 4, 2018, following the publication of the provisional merit list

The petitioner further sought a direction for the authorities to decide his objections via a reasoned order and to grant the license in his favor

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 is entitled to a condonation of delay for approaching the appellate/revisional authority after the expiration of the limitation period

Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provided for an appeal to the District Officer against orders denying or cancelling a license; Section 32(v) allows for stay orders during pendency; and Section 32(vi) 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 an appellate order

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay

The court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner fell within the purview of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides a structured hierarchy for grievances

While Section 32(iii) directs appeals to the District Magistrate, the court noted that since the District Magistrate serves as the Chairman of the District Level Selection Committee, he cannot review his own selection decisions in an appellate capacity

Consequently, the court determined that the appropriate forum for the petitioner's grievance was a complaint or application before the Divisional Commissioner

Regarding the lapse in the limitation period, the court found it equitable to allow the petitioner to approach the concerned authority, noting that the time spent pursuing the writ petition should be considered for condonation

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, provide a fair hearing to the petitioner, and dispose of the matter with a reasoned order within three months of filing