Writ petition may be disposed of to allow petitioner to pursue available statutory alternative remedy of revision.

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging Memo No. 522 dated 09-03-2019, which selected private respondent No. 8 to operate a Public Distribution System (PDS) shop under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

The petitioner and local residents had previously submitted an objection/representation dated 02-08-2019 to the District Magistrate regarding the selection.

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Control Order.

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

2. Whether the court should direct the appellate authority to entertain a revision petition despite the expiry of the limitation period.

Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides that a revision may be filed before the Divisional Commissioner against an order passed in appeal or due to non-disposal of an appeal by the District Officer within sixty days.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay in filing such statutory remedies.

The court observed that the petitioner had already approached the District Magistrate via a representation, but the statutory scheme of the 2016 Order specifically provides for a revisional remedy before the Divisional Commissioner.

The court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the limitation period for filing such a revision had lapsed during the pendency of the writ or other proceedings.

Rather than adjudicating on the merits of the selection of respondent No. 8, the court determined that the petitioner must exhaust the alternative remedy provided by law.

To ensure justice, the court invoked its discretionary power to direct the Divisional Commissioner to overlook the delay, provided the petitioner files the revision within a specified timeframe.

The Court disposed of the writ petition without interfering with the impugned Memo at this stage, directing the petitioner to file a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner within one month.

All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.