Writ Petition Not Maintainable Where Alternative Statutory Remedy for Appeal and Revision Exists

The petitioner, Rajiv Kumar, challenged a selection order dated 10.07.2019 regarding the appointment of a fair price shop dealer under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Despite being listed at Sl. No. 6 under the E.B.C. (M) category and claiming to be the most qualified and senior candidate, he was not selected for the license.

He approached the High Court via a writ petition seeking to quash the selection list.

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.

Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Section 32(iii) provides for an appeal to the District Officer against licensing decisions.

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

Principle of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The court observed that the 2016 Control Order explicitly provides a multi-tier statutory remedy for grievances related to dealership selection.

Since the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee, he cannot legally review his own order in an appellate capacity; consequently, the court directed the petitioner to approach the Divisional Commissioner—the revisional authority—directly.

Recognizing that the statutory limitation period had lapsed during the pendency of the writ, the court determined that the delay should be condoned to ensure the petitioner is not left remediless.

The petition was disposed of with a direction to file a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner within one month, who shall condone the delay and dispose of the matter on merits within three months.

All interlocutory applications were dismissed.