Patna High Court
Manju Devi @ Manjoo Devi,versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to pursue the statutory revision remedy before the Divisional Commissioner.
Summary
Manju Devi filed a writ petition seeking to be appointed as a PDS dealer and to obtain a PDS licence for her ward, while also requesting cancellation of a licence granted to a family member, alleging that the issuance was illegal, arbitrary and violated her fundamental rights under Articles 16 and 21. The respondents relied on Section 32(v) and 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provide for a stay of the order pending appeal and a revision remedy before the Divisional Commissioner if an appeal is not disposed of within sixty days. The petitioner argued that the limitation period for filing the revision had expired and sought a direction to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court observed that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of filing a revision and directed her to do so within four weeks, with the delay to be condoned by the Divisional Commissioner. The Court further ordered that the revision be disposed of within three months of filing and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as a PDS dealer and to obtain a PDS licence under the Bihar PDS Order.
- Whether the limitation period for filing a revision before the Divisional Commissioner can be condoned under the Limitation Act.
- Whether the issuance of a PDS licence to the respondent’s family member is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 — s. 32(v), 32(vi)
- Limitation Act — s. 5
Subjects
- PDS licence
- Public Distribution System
- Revision
- Limitation period
- Writ petition
- Administrative law
- Fundamental rights
- Article 16
- Article 21
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21681 of 2019
======================================================
Manju Devi @ Manjoo Devi, W/o Ravin Ravindra Kumar Ravi, Resident of
Village- Amahara, P.S.- Bihta, Dist- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Patna.
3. The SDO, Danapur, Patna.
4. The Block Supply Officer Bihta, Distt. Patna.
5. Smt. Chandani Kumari, W/o Shri Ramesh Kumar, Resident of Village- Ama-
hara, P.S. Bihta, Distt. Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dineshwar Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr.S. Raza Ahmad, AAG5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-06-2026
1. The Writ petition is field for the fol-
lowing reliefs:
“For issuance of appropriate
Writ (s), order (s) or direction Com-
manding the respondents to ap-
point/select the petitioner as PDS
Dealer and accordingly for issuance
of PDS Licence in her favour in
Amahar Panchayat under Bihta PS
within the district of Patna and for
cancellation of the PDS Licence of
the Respondent No. 5 as a member
of her family has already been ac-
corded PDS Licence in ward No. 7
of the same panchayat as such the
act of the Respondent authority in
issuance of PDS Licence to the Re-
spondent No. 5 is illegal, high
handed and arbitrary in nature and
the same is also without Jurisdiction
Patna High Court CWJC No.21681 of 2019 dt.23-06-2026
2/3
and has offended the fundamental
right of the petitioner conferred un-
der article 16 and 21 of the consti-
tution of India.”
2. At this juncture, the Learned counsel
for the respondents contended that Section 32(vi)
of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016 provides for the provision of
revision. Section 32(v) and (vi) read as follows:
“32. (v) Till the disposal of ap-
peal pending, the Appellate Author-
ity may direct that the order under
appeal shall not take effect for such
period as the authority may con-
sider necessary for giving a reason-
able 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 Dis-
trict 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that he intends to file a revision before
the Divisional Commissioner, but the limitation pe-
riod for filing the revision has lapsed. He prayed for
a direction to the concerned Divisional Commis-
Patna High Court CWJC No.21681 of 2019 dt.23-06-2026
3/3
sioner to entertain the revision petition in accor-
dance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
4. Taking into consideration that the peti-
tioner has an alternative remedy for filing a revi-
sion, the Writ petition is disposed of with a direc-
tion to the petitioner to file the revision petition
within four weeks from the date of receipt of this
order before the Divisional Commissioner. The de-
lay in filing the revision shall be condoned by the
Divisional Commissioner, and the authority shall
dispose of the revision within three months from
the date of filing of the revision petition.
5. With the above said observation, the
Writ petition is disposed of.
6. 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.