Patna High Court
Mamta DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner.
Summary
Mamta Devi filed a writ petition challenging the issuance of a permanent PDS license to another applicant by the District Level Selection Committee, alleging violation of natural justice and seeking quashing of the order, restraining further licenses, and compensation. The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides for appeal to the District Officer and revision before the Divisional Commissioner. The Court held that the District Magistrate, who heads the Selection Committee, cannot entertain an appeal against his own order and therefore directed the petitioner to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner. Noting the petitioner’s claim of limitation lapse, the Court invoked Section 5 of the Limitation Act and ordered that the delay be condoned, directing the petition to be filed within one month and the authority to dispose of it within three months. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without granting the reliefs sought, with the direction to pursue the statutory remedy.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy exists under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016
- Whether the petitioner can be permitted to file a complaint/application despite the lapse of the limitation period
- Whether the court may direct the concerned authority to condone delay and set a time‑frame for disposal
Legislation cited
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 — s. 32(iii), 32(v), 32(vi)
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5
Subjects
- PDS license
- natural justice
- alternative remedy
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
- Limitation Act
- administrative law
- writ petition
- selection committee
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17008 of 2019
======================================================
Mamta Devi Wife of Ravindra Kumar @ Ravindra Malakar Resident of
Village- Aurahi, P.S.- Gamhariya, District- Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary Food and Consumer Protection Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-Cum- Collector Madhepura.
4. The Sub- Divisional Officer Civil, Madhepura.
5. The District Supply Officer Madhepura.
6. Anita Anand Wife of Shambhu Mehta Resident of Village- Chandanpatti,
P.S. Gamhariya, District- Madhepura.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Ujjawal, SC4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-07-2026
1. The Writ petition has been filed for the
following relief:
”(I). To issue appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/
directions for quashing of an order dated
05.07.2019 passed by the District level
Selection Committee, Madhepura, by
which selection Committee has issued
memo. no. 573 dated 05.07.2019 for
issuance of P.D.S. license to the private
respondent no. 6 without looking at the
case of the petitioner.
(ii). To issue further appropriate
Patna High Court CWJC No.17008 of 2019 dt.01-07-2026
2/5
writ, order or direction restraining the
respondents from issuing fresh P.D.S.
license in place of the petitioner.
(iii). This Hon'ble Court may
adjudicate and hold that the action of the
concerned respondent is illegal and
against the principle of natural justice
specially when the objection petition of
the petitioner is pending before the
concerned authority and without deciding
the objection petition, concerned
respondent has issued vide memo. no.
573 dated 05.07.2019.
(iv). This Hon'ble Court may
further adjudicate and hold that not
issuance of permanent P.D.S. license of
the petitioner is completely illegal,
improper and not sustainable in the eye
of law.
(v). To award the cost of litigation
and suitable compensation to the
petitioner for the loss and damage
caused by the act of the concerned
respondents.
(vi). To award any other relief or
reliefs for which the petitioner is found
entitled in the facts and circumstances of
the case”
2. At this juncture, the Learned counsel for
the respondents contended that Section 32(iii) of
Patna High Court CWJC No.17008 of 2019 dt.01-07-2026
3/5
the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016 provides for the provision of
appeal and Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted
Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016
provides for the provision of revision. Section 32(iii)
32(v) and 32(vi) read as follows:
“32 (iii). Any person aggrieved by
an order of the licensing authority
denying the issue or renewal of the
license to the fair price shop owner or
cancellation of the license may appeal to
the District Officer within thirty days of
the date of receipt of the order and the
District Magistrate shall, as far as
practicable, dispose the appeal within a
period of sixty days.
32. (v) Till the disposal of appeal
pending, the Appellate Authority may
direct that the order under appeal shall
not take effect for such period as the
authority may consider necessary for
giving a reasonable opportunity to the
other party under sub-clause (4) or until
the appeal is disposed of, whichever is
earlier.
(vi) Due to non disposal of the
appeal within sixty days by the District
Officer or against the order passed in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17008 of 2019 dt.01-07-2026
4/5
appeal, a revision may be filed before the
Divisional Commissioner. The revision
shall be disposed of within two months.”
3. Admittedly, from the reliefs prayed for in
the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner has
an alternative remedy under the provisions of Bihar
Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,
2016.
4. The remedy available under the Act is to
prefer an appeal before the District Magistrate. As
the District Magistrate is the head of the Selection
Committee he cannot review his orders in an
appeal. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to file a
complaint/application before the Divisional
Commissioner.
5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that he intends to file a
complaint/application before the concerned
authority, but the limitation period for filing the
same has lapsed. He prayed for a direction to the
concerned authority to entertain the same in
accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
6. Taking into consideration that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17008 of 2019 dt.01-07-2026
5/5
petitioner has an alternative remedy for filing
complaint/application, the writ petition is disposed
of with a direction to the petitioner to file
complaint/application within one month from the
date of receipt of this order before the concerned
authority. The delay in filing the
complaint/application shall be condoned by the
authority concerned, and the authority shall dispose
of the same within three months from the date of
filing of the same. It is needless to mention that
before passing any order the petitioner should be
given a fair opportunity for hearing.
7. With the above said observation, the
Writ petition is disposed of.
8. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Shanu/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.