Patna High Court
Rinku KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioner must pursue the alternative remedy provided under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
Summary
Rinku Kumari filed a writ petition seeking to quash Memo No. 719 dated 20‑08‑2019 which appointed Smt. Chandani Kumari as the P.D.S. dealer for Baghai village and to direct the authorities to consider her own candidature. The selection was made by a committee chaired by the District Magistrate, despite an objection that the respondent’s father‑in‑law was a P.D.S. dealer and that the respondent had applied for the post at multiple locations. The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, specifically Sections 32(iii), (v) and (vi), to appeal to the District Magistrate or seek revision before the Divisional Commissioner. The Court held that because such a remedy exists, the writ petition is not maintainable and directed the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned authority within one month, with the delay to be condoned and the matter to be decided within three months. Consequently, the petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition seeking quash of the selection memo is maintainable when an alternative remedy under the Bihar TPDS (Control) Order, 2016 is available.
- Whether the limitation period for filing a representation can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 — s. 32(iii), 32(v), 32(vi)
- Limitation Act — s. 5
Subjects
- PDS dealer selection
- Writ petition
- Alternative remedy
- Limitation
- Administrative law
- Bihar TPDS Order
- Representation
- Quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19721 of 2019
======================================================
Rinku Kumari D/o Ramsnehi Ram, W/o Raja Ram Sharan Resident of Village
Manorathi Baghani, P.S. Runi Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.
3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.
4. Smt. Chandani Kumari W/o Lakshaman Ram Village Baghari P.SD.
Ranisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumari Sujata Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr.S. Raza Ahmad ( Aag5 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-06-2026
1. The Writ petition is filed seeking
quashing of Memo No. 719 dated 20.08.2019,
whereby respondent no. 4 was selected as the
P.D.S. dealer for Baghai in Gram Panchayat Raj
Baghai under Runisaidpur Sub-Division, District–
Sitamarhi. The petitioner has further prayed for
issuance of an appropriate direction commanding
the respondents to consider his candidature for
selection as P.D.S. dealer for Village Manorthi
Baghari, Gram Panchayat Baghari, under
Runisaidpur Sub-Division, District–Sitamarhi.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19721 of 2019 dt.22-06-2026
2/6
2. The brief facts, as culled out from the
Writ petition, are that the petitioner is an educated
person who passed the Intermediate Examination
in First Division in May, 2016. An advertisement
was published vide Memo No. 1222 for selection of
P.D.S. dealers in District Sitamarhi, including
Village Baghari under Gram Panchayat Baghari,
Runisaidpur. Accordingly, the petitioner,
respondent no. 4, and one Kabita Kumari applied
for appointment/selection as P.D.S. dealers. The
petitioner was placed at Serial No. 1, whereas the
name of respondent no. 4 was placed at Serial No.
2 in the merit list. A notice inviting objections was
published on 14.01.2019, and accordingly,
respondent no. 4 filed an objection alleging that
the father-in-law of the petitioner was a P.D.S.
dealer. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a
representation before the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sitamarhi, stating therein that the father-in-law of
respondent no. 4 was in Government service and
that the husband of respondent no. 4 is an
educated unemployed person. Therefore,
Patna High Court CWJC No.19721 of 2019 dt.22-06-2026
3/6
respondent no. 4 was not entitled to be selected as
a P.D.S. dealer under the applicable provisions. It is
further stated that, as per the relevant guidelines,
no person can apply at two places for the same
purpose. However, respondent no. 4 allegedly
submitted applications for selection in more than
one location, including within the same Panchayat
area. The Writ petition further disclose that a
meeting of the Selection Committee, presided by
District Magistrate, was held on 20.08.2019,
wherein a recommendation was made for selection
of respondent no. 4 as a P.D.S. dealer, vide Memo
No. 719 dated 20.08.2019.
3. The Learned counsel for the
respondents contended that there is an alternative
remedy available under Section 32(iii) of the Bihar
Targeted Public Distribution System (Control)
Order, 2016 to prefer an appeal and under Section
32(vi) to prefer a 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.19721 of 2019 dt.22-06-2026
4/6
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 appeal, a revision
may be filed before the Divisional
Commissioner. The revision shall
be disposed of within two months.
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 own
orders in an appeal. Therefore, the petitioner is
Patna High Court CWJC No.19721 of 2019 dt.22-06-2026
5/6
directed to file a complaint/application before the
Divisional Commissioner.
5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that he intends to file a representation
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
petitioner has an alternative remedy for filing
representation, the Writ petition is disposed of with
a direction to the petitioner to file representation
within one month from the date of receipt of this
order before the concerned authority. The delay in
filing the representation shall be condoned by the
authority concerned, and the authority shall
dispose of the same within three months from the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19721 of 2019 dt.22-06-2026
6/6
date of filing of the same.
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)
Amandeep/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 22.06.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.