Patna High Court
Rajiv KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The High Court held that the petitioner must pursue the alternative remedy provided under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajiv Kumar, sought a writ of certiorari to quash a selection order dated 10‑07‑2019 that placed his name under the E.B.C. (M) category for a fair‑price dealer under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, alleging discrimination despite his qualifications. The respondents argued that the Order provides a specific appeal and revision mechanism under Section 32, which the petitioner had not utilized. The Court observed that an alternative statutory remedy exists, requiring the petitioner to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner, and that the District Magistrate, being the head of the selection committee, cannot entertain an appeal against his own order. The petitioner claimed the limitation period for filing such a complaint had lapsed and invoked Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court directed the petitioner to file the complaint within one month, condoning any delay, and ordered the authority to dispose of it within three months, thereby disposing of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain the writ petition when an alternative remedy under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 is available.
- Whether the limitation period for filing a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner 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
- Writ of certiorari
- Fair‑price dealer
- Selection order
- Alternative statutory remedy
- Limitation Act
- Administrative law
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23140 of 2019
======================================================
Rajiv Kumar Son of Vakil Prasad Resident of Village- Dhutauli, Malapa
Panchayat- Dhautauli P.S. Chautham, District- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and
Civil Supply, Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate Khagaria.
3. The Sub- Divisional Officer Khagaria.
4. The District Co-operative Officer Khagaria.
5. The General Manager District Industry Centre, Khagaria.
6. The District Supply Officer Khagaria.
7. The Block Supply Officer Chautham, District- Khagaria.
8. Vikash Kumar Son of Om Prakash Sah Resident of Village and P.O.-
Dhutauli, P.S.- Chautham, District- Khagaria.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bishweshwar Ram, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG5
: Mr. Anisul Haque, AC to AAG5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA
CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-07-2026
1. The present Writ petition is filed for the
following reliefs:-
“For issuance of a writ in
the nature of certiorari for
quashing the selection order
dated 10.07.2019 (contained in
Annexure 5) by which the
selection list of fair price dealer
under Bihar Targeted Public
Distribution System (Control)
Order 2016 is prepared by the full
majority of selection committee,
Patna High Court CWJC No.23140 of 2019 dt.07-07-2026
2/5
the name of the petitioner came
under the category of E.B.C. (M)
stand on Sl. No. 6 but not
consider the case of the petitioner
by the respondents for holding
that the petitioner shall not be
discriminated for obtaining
Licence of fair price dealership
inspite of sufficient required
qualification/eligibility as the
petitioner is the most qualified
candidate and senior in age
among the candidates who have
applied for dealership which is
appears in the light of circular of
P.D.S. Dealer.
For any appropriate writ
or writs by which the petitioner
may deem to be entitled.”
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.23140 of 2019 dt.07-07-2026
3/5
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.”
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23140 of 2019 dt.07-07-2026
4/5
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
complaint/application, the Writ petition is disposed
of with a direction to the petitioner to file
Patna High Court CWJC No.23140 of 2019 dt.07-07-2026
5/5
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.
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 07.07.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.