Patna High Court
Jhingur BhagatversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to pursue the statutory complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner, with condonation of delay.
Summary
The petitioner, Jhingur Bhagat, challenged the cancellation of his Fair Price Shop licence by the Sub‑Divisional Officer and its affirmation by the District Magistrate, seeking a writ to quash the orders and restore the licence. The respondents argued that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides a specific appeal and revision mechanism, which the petitioner had not utilized. The Court observed that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy and that the District Magistrate, being the head of the selection committee, cannot entertain an appeal against his own order. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month, with the delay to be condoned. The Court also mandated that the authority dispose of the complaint within three months and ensure a fair hearing. The writ petition was therefore disposed without granting the reliefs sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 exists
- Whether the limitation period for filing the complaint/application 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
- fair price shop
- licence cancellation
- writ petition
- alternative remedy
- public distribution system
- limitation
- condonation
- administrative law
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20113 of 2019
======================================================
Jhingur Bhagat Son of Rupa Bhagat, Resident of Mohalla-Dulma, P.S.-
Madhuban, District-East Champaran. (Motihari).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and
Civil Supply, Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Pakari Dayal, District-East Champaran.
4. The Block Food Supply Officer, Patahi, District-East Champaran (Motihari).
5. The Block Development Officer, Pakaridayal, District-East Champaran
(Motiahri).
6. The Marketing Officer, Patahi, P.S.-Patahi, Pakaridayal, District-East
Champaran (Motihari).
7. The Circle Officer, Patahi, P.S.-Patahi, District-East Champaran.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-06-2026
1. The Writ petition has been filed for the
following relief:
”(I) To issue an appropriate
order/s, direction/s including a writ
preferably in the nature of
CERTIORARI for quashing the order
dated 25-06-19 passed by the
District Magistrate, East Champaran,
Motihari in Supply Case No. 06/2018
whereby and where under he has
rejected the said Supply Case No.
06/18 and affirmed the order dated
05-02-2018 passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer, Pakridayal, District-
Patna High Court CWJC No.20113 of 2019 dt.29-06-2026
2/5
East Champaran in Supply Record
No. 05/2017 by which he has
cancelled the fair price shop license
of the petitioner bearing License No.
125 of 2016.
(ii) To quash the order dated
05-02-2018 passed in Supply record
No. 05-02-2018 by the S.D.O.
Pakridayal, District- East Champaran
whereby and where under the
petitioner's fair price shop license
bearing No. 125 of 2016 has been
cancelled.
(iii) To direct the respondent
No. 3 the S.D.O. Pakridayal District
East Champaran the licensing
authority under the Bihar Targeted
Public Distribution system control
(order) 2016 to restore the PDS
license of the petitioner hence forth
with.
(IV) To any other relief/s to
which the petitioner is 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
the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016 provides for the provision of
appeal and Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted
Patna High Court CWJC No.20113 of 2019 dt.29-06-2026
3/5
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 appeal, a revision may
be filed before the Divisional
Patna High Court CWJC No.20113 of 2019 dt.29-06-2026
4/5
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
petitioner has an alternative remedy for filing
Patna High Court CWJC No.20113 of 2019 dt.29-06-2026
5/5
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.