Writ petition is not maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal or revision exists.

The petitioner challenged the Final Selection List for Village Kachhiyana, Block Lakhisarai, wherein Respondent No. 5 was selected for the grant of a Public Distribution System (PDS) License

The petitioner claimed to be the first empanelled candidate and argued that his candidature was wrongfully ignored

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of statutory alternative remedies under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy exists under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

2. Whether the District Magistrate, as the head of the Selection Committee, is the appropriate authority to hear an appeal against the selection list

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 regarding license issuance

Section 32(v) allows for stay orders pending appeal

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay for filing statutory applications

The court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner fall squarely within the scope of the statutory remedies provided by the 2016 Control Order

While Section 32(iii) directs appeals to the District Magistrate, the court noted a potential conflict of interest since the District Magistrate acts as the head of the Selection Committee and cannot review his own orders in an appellate capacity

Consequently, the court reasoned that the petitioner should instead approach the Divisional Commissioner with a complaint or application

Regarding the petitioner's concern over the expired limitation period, the court determined that a direction to condone the delay was necessary to ensure the petitioner was not left without a remedy due to the time spent pursuing the writ

The court held that the petitioner must file a complaint or application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month

The court directed the concerned authority to condone the delay in filing and to dispose of the matter on its merits within three months, ensuring the petitioner is granted a fair opportunity of hearing

The writ petition and all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly