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

The petitioner challenged the issuance of a Public Distribution System (PDS) License to private respondent No. 6. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 6 obtained the license using a fake Bachelor of Computer Applications (BCA) certificate from a university not approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), in violation of government mandates.

The petitioner sought a writ to cancel the private respondent's license and command the authorities to issue the license to the petitioner based on the eligibility criteria mentioned in the original advertisement.

During proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the existence of statutory alternative remedies.

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 statutory authority after the limitation period has lapsed?

Section 32(iii) provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority regarding the issuance or cancellation of a license may appeal to the District Officer within thirty days.

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

The Court invoked the principle of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the condonation of delay for bona fide pursuit of a remedy in a wrong forum.

The Court observed that the reliefs sought—challenging the grant of a PDS license and seeking its cancellation—fall squarely within the regulatory framework of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

While the statute designates the District Magistrate as the appellate authority under Section 32(iii), the Court noted a procedural conflict: since the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee that issues the licenses, he cannot act as an appellate authority to review his own orders.

Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to bypass the District Magistrate and approach the Divisional Commissioner (the Revisional Authority).

Recognizing that the time spent pursuing the writ petition led to the expiry of the statutory limitation period, the Court determined that the delay ought to be condoned to ensure the ends of justice and the principles of natural justice.

The Court directed the petitioner to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month of the order. The Divisional Commissioner was ordered to condone the delay in filing and dispose of the matter on its merits within three months from the date of filing. All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.