Patna High Court
Neebha KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The petitioner must pursue the alternative statutory remedy before the Divisional Commissioner, and the writ petition is disposed of.
Summary
The petitioner, Neebha Kumari, applied for a P.D.S. shop licence and was initially recommended by the District Selection Committee, but her recommendation was later cancelled and the licence was granted to another applicant, Subhawati Kumari. She filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the licensing authority to grant her the licence and to quash the selection of the other applicant. The respondents argued that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides an alternative remedy of appeal to the District Magistrate and, failing that, a revision before the Divisional Commissioner. The Court held that because an alternative statutory remedy exists, the petitioner must pursue a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner rather than the writ jurisdiction. It further directed that the petitioner file the complaint within one month and that any delay be condoned, with the authority disposing of the matter within three months. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with directions to use the statutory remedy.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can obtain relief through a writ of mandamus 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, 1963 — s. 5
Subjects
- PDS shop licence
- mandamus
- writ petition
- alternative remedy
- administrative law
- limitation
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
- selection committee
- condonation of delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25686 of 2019
======================================================
Neebha Kumari wife of Rajan Kumar Yadav resident of Ward No. 8, Bheda
Chaur, P.O. Farasahani, Police Station- Laukariya, District- West Champaran
at Bettiah.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Joint Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector-cum- District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah.
4. The District Supply Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah.
5. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Bagaha, District- West Champaran.
6. Subhawati Kumari wife of Ravi Kumar resident of Village- Bhedachaur,
P.O. Farasahani, Police Station- Laukariya, District- West Champaran at
Bettiah.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-07-2026
1. The present Writ petition is filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(a). For issuance of writ
in nature of mandamus for
commanding and directing the
licensing authority under Bihar
Targeted Public Distribution
System 2016 for grant of P.D.S.
shop License in terms of panel
of recommendation by the
District Selection Committee
vide memo no. 115 dated
08.02.2019 in which the
petitioner's name is reflected at
serial no. 66 but unfortunately
Patna High Court CWJC No.25686 of 2019 dt.06-07-2026
2/5
the Respondent illegally made
selection of Respondent no. 6
for grant of P.D.S. shop license
after cancellation of previous
recommendation of the
petitioner.
(b). For quashing or set
aside selection of the
Respondent No. for grant of
P.D.S. shop license in terms of
meeting dated 10.10.2019 by
the District Supply Selection
Committee, West Champaran on
the basis of recommendation
vide letter no. 95 dated
05.03.2019 issued by Sub-
divisional Officer, Bagaha.
(c). And for any other
relief/ reliefs for which the
petitioner is found to be entitled
under the provision of law
involved in the present 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
Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016
provides for the provision of revision. Section 32(iii)
32(v) and 32(vi) read as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.25686 of 2019 dt.06-07-2026
3/5
“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 disposed
of within two months.”
3. Admittedly, from the reliefs prayed for in
the Writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.25686 of 2019 dt.06-07-2026
4/5
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.25686 of 2019 dt.06-07-2026
5/5
petitioner has an alternative remedy for filing
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.
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.