Writ Petition Not Maintainable Where Statutory Alternative Remedy of Revision Exists Against Selection Committee Orders

The petitioner, Manish Kumar Singh, challenged the selection of private Respondent No. 10 for a Public Distribution System (PDS) license in Ward No. 4, Mangwar Panchayat, Bihar

The selection was made by a committee vide an order dated September 14, 2019

The petitioner sought the quashing of said order and a direction for his own appointment, claiming to be the most meritorious candidate

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory alternative remedies available under the state control orders

1. Whether the petitioner is required to exhaust statutory alternative remedies before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court

2. Whether the District Magistrate, as the head of the Selection Committee, can act as the Appellate Authority for orders passed by said committee

Specifically, Section 32(iii) provides for an appeal to the District Officer against licensing decisions within thirty days; Section 32(v) allows for ad-interim stay orders during the pendency of an appeal; and Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against the appellate order

Limitation principles under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were also considered regarding the delay in approaching the statutory forum

The court found that the Petitioner had a clear alternative remedy under the 2016 Order

However, it observed a procedural anomaly: since the District Magistrate chairs the Selection Committee that passed the impugned order, he cannot legally sit in appeal over his own decision

To resolve this and ensure an impartial hearing, the court determined that the petitioner should instead file a complaint or application directly before the Divisional Commissioner (the revisional authority)

Regarding the lapse of the limitation period, the court took note of the petitioner's pursuit of the writ remedy and directed the authority to condone the delay under Section 5 principles

It held that the petitioner must pursue his grievance before the Divisional Commissioner

The petitioner was directed to file his application within one month, and the Divisional Commissioner was directed to condone the delay and dispose of the matter on merits within three months from the date of filing