Patna High Court
Chandan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner must first pursue the alternative statutory remedy of filing a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner.
Summary
Petitioner Chandan Kumar challenged the selection of two individuals as PDS dealers in Korai Panchayat, alleging violation of Order‑11 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2016, and sought certiorari and mandamus to quash the selection. The Court observed that the Order provides a specific statutory remedy – an appeal to the District Officer and, failing that, a revision before the Divisional Commissioner – which the petitioner must pursue. Since the District Magistrate, who heads the selection committee, cannot review his own order, the petition was deemed premature. The petitioner’s claim of limitation expiry was noted, but the Court directed that the delay be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with a direction to file a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner within one month, and the authority was instructed to dispose of it within three months.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, that bars the writ petition.
- Whether the limitation period for filing the statutory complaint can be condoned under the Limitation Act.
- Whether the High Court can grant certiorari and mandamus in the absence of exhaustion of the statutory remedy.
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
- certiorari
- mandamus
- alternative statutory remedy
- limitation period
- Bihar Targeted PDS System
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25310 of 2019
======================================================
Chandan Kumar S/o Lal Babu Mahto, R/o Ward No. 11, Sujanpur, Korai,
P.S.- Garhpura, District-Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary Food and Consumer Protection
Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Begusarai.
4. District Supply Officer, Begusarai.
5. The Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Bakhri, Begusarai.
6. Sri Anil Sharma, S/o Ram Prakash Sharma, R/o Sujanpur, P.O.-Korai,
Block-Garhpura, District-Begusarai.
7. Sajia Nasrin, W/o Md. Ataul, R/o Sujanpur, P.O.-Korai, Block-Garhpura,
District-Begusarai.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Chatan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG5
For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Murlidhar Mishra, Advocate
: Mr. Shubhash Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-07-2026
1. The Writ petition has been filed for the
following relief:
”For issuance of appropriate
writ or writs, in the nature of the writ
of (i) certiorari quashing the order of
selection contained in Memo No.
2900 dated 20.09.2019 (Annexure-8)
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Bakhri, Begusarai, respondent no. 5,
whereby and whereunder the
respondent no. 5 has made illegal
Patna High Court CWJC No.25310 of 2019 dt.02-07-2026
2/5
selection of respondent no. 6 Sri Anil
Sharma and respondent no. 7 Smt.
Sajia Nasrin for being appointed as
the dealer of Public Distribution
System Shop (PDS dealer), in Korai
Panchayat against the 2 vacancies
arisen in utter violation of the
provisions contained in Order-11 of
Bihar Targeted Public Distribution
System (Control), Orders, 2016, in
short the 'orders' (ii) Mandamus
directing, commanding and
restraining the respondents from
issuing any PDS dealership on the
basis of the said selection contained
in Annexure-8, in Korai Panchayat
and to consider the case of the
petitioner afresh, and stay of the list
of selection contained in Annexure-8
so far as Korai Panchayat is
concerned, pending disposal of the
writ application.”
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.25310 of 2019 dt.02-07-2026
3/5
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
Commissioner. The revision shall be
Patna High Court CWJC No.25310 of 2019 dt.02-07-2026
4/5
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
complaint/application, the writ petition is disposed
Patna High Court CWJC No.25310 of 2019 dt.02-07-2026
5/5
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.