Writ Petition Not Maintainable Where Alternative Statutory Remedy of Appeal or Revision Exists

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to command the State respondents to cancel the Public Distribution System (PDS) license granted in 2019 to respondent no. 6 (Udho Paswan) in Keota Gram Panchayat, Samastipur

The petitioner relied on an inquiry report dated 21.05.2019 and a subsequent letter from the District Supply Officer dated 01.08.2019 as grounds for the cancellation

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ, arguing that the petitioner had not exhausted available statutory 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 court can direct the concerned authority to condone the delay in filing a statutory representation/complaint due to the expiration of the limitation period

The court applied the provisions of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, specifically Section 32(iii), which provides for an appeal to the District Officer against licensing orders; Section 32(v), which allows for stay orders during pendency; and Section 32(vi), which provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if an appeal is not disposed of within sixty days

The court also referenced Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay for filing representations

The court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner fell squarely within the regulatory framework of the 2016 Order. It noted that Section 32 provides a multi-tier remedy consisting of appeal and revision

However, the court recognized a procedural conflict: since the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee, they cannot effectively sit in appeal of their own committee's licensing decisions. Consequently, the court reasoned that the appropriate forum for the petitioner's grievance was a complaint or application before the Divisional Commissioner

Addressing the petitioner's concern regarding the expired limitation period, the court determined that the interests of justice required a direction to the authority to entertain the matter despite the delay

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