Writ Petition Not Maintainable When Alternative Statutory Remedy of Revision Exists Under PDS Control Order

The petitioner, Santosh Kumar, challenged the allotment of a fair price shop under Panchayat Sahila Rampur, Muzaffarpur, to respondent No. 9 (Sanjay Kumar). The petitioner contended that although he stood at Serial No. 1 in the merit list, the shop was allotted to respondent No. 9, who was at Serial No. 4

The petitioner further alleged that respondent No. 9 lacked computer knowledge and had family members in government/panchayat service, making him ineligible

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of statutory alternative remedies

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

2. Whether the petitioner can be granted a condonation of delay for approaching the statutory authority after the expiration of the limitation period

Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, specifically Section 32(iii), which provides for an appeal to the District Officer against licensing decisions, and Section 32(vi), which provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner

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 fell squarely within the scope of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, confirming that a statutory alternative remedy exists

The Court noted a procedural conflict: since the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee, he cannot act as the appellate authority to review his own orders. Consequently, the Court determined that the appropriate forum for the petitioner is to file a complaint or application directly before the Divisional Commissioner

Addressing the petitioner’s concern regarding the lapsed limitation period, the Court found it equitable to allow the petitioner to file the application late, provided it is done within a specific timeframe

The Court ordered the concerned authority to condone the delay in filing and to dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of the filing date. All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly