Writ Petition Prematurely Filed Where Alternative Statutory Remedy of Revision Exists Under BTPDS Control Order

The petitioner, Asha Bharti, filed a writ petition seeking the issuance of a Public Distribution System (P.D.S.) license in her name and the quashing of any decision passed by the District Selection Committee, Begusarai, which may have granted the license to a private respondent (Respondent No. 4) instead

The petitioner further requested the cancellation of Respondent No. 4's license on the grounds that no formal order regarding the selection process was served upon the petitioner

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

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

2. Whether the petitioner can be granted liberty to approach the revisional authority despite the expiry of the limitation period

Section 32(iii), which provides for an appeal to the District Officer against orders of the licensing authority; Section 32(v), regarding stay orders during pending appeals; and Section 32(vi), which provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if an appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against an appellate order [Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016]

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the condonation of delay in filing applications

The Court observed that because the reliefs sought involved the issuance and cancellation of P.D.S. licenses, the petitioner clearly had an alternative remedy under the 2016 Control Order

While the statute typically directs the first appeal to the District Magistrate (District Officer), the Court noted a procedural conflict: since the District Magistrate acts as the head of the Selection Committee that initially made the decision, he cannot effectively review his own order in an appellate capacity

Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner should bypass the District Magistrate and file a complaint or application directly before the Divisional Commissioner

Regarding the lapsed limitation period, the Court found it equitable to allow the petitioner to approach the authority, directing that the delay be condoned to ensure the matter is heard on its merits

The Court directed the concerned authority to condone the delay in filing and to dispose of the matter within three months thereafter. All pending interlocutory applications were dismissed