Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Kavita JhaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious statutory appeal under Clause 32(3) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Summary

Kavita Jha filed a civil writ petition challenging actions of the State of Bihar and its officials. The High Court observed that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Clause 32(3) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition, directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Magistrate‑cum‑Collector of Muzaffarpur. The Court instructed that the appeal be filed within two weeks and that the authority give the petitioner a hearing and decide the matter within eight weeks. The writ petition was therefore disposed of without any substantive order on the merits.

Issues considered

  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory appeal is available under Clause 32(3) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • alternative remedy
  • public distribution system
  • administrative law
  • jurisdiction

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1104 of 2026
                 ======================================================
                 Kavita Jha ,W/o Pankaj Kumar Jha, R/o Ward No. - 4, PWD Near Bhagwati
                 Asthan, Village- Jahangirpur, P.O.-Tehwara, Kotsa Barhbari, District-
                 Muzaffarpur.

                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                  Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Food and Civil Supply
                 Dept Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
           2.    The District Magistrate Muzaffarpur.
           3.    The Sub-Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur (East).
           4.    The District Supply Officer, Gayghat, Muzaffarpur.
           5.    The Block Development Officer, Gayghat, Muzaffarpur.
           6.    The Block Supply Officer, Gayghat, Muzaffarpur.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr.Prem Prakash Poddar, Adv.
                 For the Respondent/s   :      Mr.Government Pleader (20)
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   12-03-2026                 Even though, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

                   of the petitioner has argued at length on merits of the case, this

                   Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition,

                   having regard to the facts that the petitioner has an alternative

                   and efficacious remedy of preferring a statutory appeal before

                   the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Muzaffarpur, under

                   Clause 32(3) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System

                   (Control) Order, 2016. The present writ petition is disposed of

                   directing the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate-cum-

                   Collector, Muzaffarpur (Respondent No. 2) by way of appeal
             Patna High Court CWJC No.1104 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
                                                         2/2




                       within a period of two weeks from today. On such appeal being

                       filed, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Muzaffarpur

                       (Respondent No. 2) shall consider the same on merits and pass a

                       reasoned orders in accordance with law.

                                   2. It is needless to mention that before passing any

                       order, the authorities concerned shall give an opportunity of

                       hearing to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed

                       as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight

                       weeks from the date of filing of the appeal by the petitioner.

                       Any order passed shall be communicated to the parties.

                                   3. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands

                       disposed of.



                                                               (A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.