Patna High Court
Ajit Kumar Suman,versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The court held that where a specific statutory remedy exists, the petitioner must pursue that remedy, and therefore the writ petition was dismissed with a direction to file a representation before the Divisional Commissioner, with condonation of delay.
Summary
Ajit Kumar Suman filed a writ petition seeking an inquiry into the matriculation certificate of respondent No.8, alleging fraud and requesting that his name be placed at the top of a public distribution merit list. The court observed that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides a specific appeal and revision mechanism, which constitutes an alternative remedy. Since the District Magistrate, who heads the selection committee, cannot review his own orders, the petitioner was directed to approach the Divisional Commissioner. The petitioner’s claim of a lapsed limitation period was noted, but the court allowed condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and ordered the petitioner to file a representation within one month. The authority concerned must also dispose of the representation within three months, ensuring a fair hearing. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without granting any writ relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to writ relief when a specific statutory remedy under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 is available.
- Whether the limitation period for filing a representation can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- Whether the District Magistrate can entertain an appeal against his own order.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 — s. 32(iii), 32(v), 32(vi)
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5
Subjects
- Public Distribution System
- Writ Petition
- Alternative Remedy
- Limitation Act
- Administrative Law
- Appeal
- Revision
- Condonation of Delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21005 of 2019
======================================================
Ajit Kumar Suman, Son of Sri Ram Chandra Ram, Resident of Village-
Babhanpura under Gram Panchayat Dakshini Barawn, P.O.-Kharari, P.S.-
Nokha, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and
Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sasaram, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.
4. The District Supply Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.
5. The District Education Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.
6. The Block Development Officer, Nokha, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.
7. The Block Supply Officer, Nokha, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.
8. Narendra Ram, Son of Ram Ram, Resident of Village-Babhanpura, P.O.-
Kharari, P.S.-Nokha, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5
For Respondent No.8 : Mr. Jubair Ansari, Advocate
: Mr. Obadur Rahman, Advocate
: Mr. Nazmeen Khatoon, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-06-2026
1. The writ petition is filed for the following
reliefs:
“For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to the
respondents to make an enquiry about
the matriculation Certificate of the
Respondent no.8 since the Respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2019 dt.22-06-2026
2/5
no.8 passed the two different years of
Annual Examination of matriculation by
changing his name and parent's name
and further to place the name of the
petitioner at S.No.1 of the final merit list
of Public Distribution Dealership of Gram
Panchayat Dakshini Barawn Block Nokha
(Rohtas) in accordance with law.”
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 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.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2019 dt.22-06-2026
3/5
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.
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2019 dt.22-06-2026
4/5
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 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 complaint/application shall be condoned by
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2019 dt.22-06-2026
5/5
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 N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.