Writ petition is not maintainable where an alternative statutory remedy of appeal or revision is available.

The petitioner, Meena Kumari, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash a decision dated 30.11.2018 made by a selection committee, which granted a Public Distribution System (PDS) license to respondent No. 5 (Jawina Khatoon) under the PDS (Control) Order, 2016.

The petitioner further sought a writ of mandamus to compel the authorities to act upon her representation dated 27.09.2019 and cancel the said license.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner had failed to exhaust available statutory alternative remedies.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative statutory remedies provided under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the petitioner can be granted liberty to approach the revisional authority despite the expiry of the limitation period.

Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides for an appeal to the District Officer within thirty days against orders regarding license issuance or cancellation.

Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against an appellate order.

The principle of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to ensure access to justice despite procedural lapses.

The court observed that the PDS (Control) Order, 2016, establishes a clear hierarchy for dispute resolution.

While Section 32(iii) designates the District Magistrate (District Officer) as the appellate authority, the court noted a conflict of interest: since the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee that made the initial decision, he cannot legally review his own order in an appeal.

Consequently, the court determined that the appropriate forum for the petitioner's grievance is the Divisional Commissioner via a complaint or revision.

Regarding the lapsed limitation period, the court reasoned that since the petitioner was pursuing a remedy in the High Court, she should be permitted to approach the correct authority with a direction to condone the delay to ensure the matter is heard on its merits.

The Court directed the petitioner to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month from the date of the order, with instructions to condone the delay and dispose of the matter on merits within three months. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.