Patna High Court
Kiran MouryaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The High Court held that the petitioner must pursue the alternative remedy before the Divisional Commissioner, and therefore the writ petition was disposed of.
Summary
The petitioner, Kiran Mourya, sought a PDS dealer licence after being placed first on the merit list of the District Selection Committee, but her application was rejected on the ground that she was a member of the Nentara Self Help Group without authorization, and the second‑ranked candidate, Aarushi Priya, was recommended instead. She filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking quashing of the committee's decision and issuance of the licence in her favour. The Court observed that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Second Amendment Order, 2022, which designates the Divisional Commissioner as the competent authority for such grievances. Consequently, the Court declined to examine the merits of the case and directed the petitioner to file a complaint with the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks. The Court further directed that the Commissioner must decide the complaint within eight weeks after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to all parties. The writ petition was therefore disposed of without any substantive order on the licence matter.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate forum for redressing the grievance regarding the rejection of the PDS licence application – the High Court via writ petition or the Divisional Commissioner under the 2022 amendment order?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- PDS licence
- District Selection Committee
- alternative remedy
- administrative law
- Bihar
- public distribution system
- jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8481 of 2026
======================================================
Kiran Mourya Wife of Sushil Yadav, Resident of Village and P.O- Laharnia,
P.S.- Triveniganj, District- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa.
3. The District Magistrate cum Chairman, District Selection Committee,
Supaul, District- Supaul.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Triveniganj, District- Supaul.
5. Aarushi Priya, Daughter of Subhash Kumar Suman, Resident of Village-
Laharnian, Post- Mirjawa, Panchayat- Mirjawa, P.S.- Triveniganj, District-
Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (04)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 23-06-2026 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“1. That this writ application is
being filed on behalf of the petitioners above
named for issuance of an appropriate writ, order
and direction for quashing the decision passed
by the District Selection Comniittee, Supaul in a
meetirig held under the Chairmanship of District
Magistrate, Supaul dated 18/3/2026 issued the
same vide Memo No. 241 dated 18/3/2026 by
which final merit list has been affirmed
unanimously and several direction have been
issued to the authorities concerned regarding the
recommendation and selection of P.D.S. license
under the signature of the same and others
authorities concerned whereby and where under
candidature of the petitioner whose name was
Patna High Court CWJC No.8481 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
2/3
mentioned in top of the merit list at Sr. No. 1 for
issuance of P.D.S. license has been rejected on
the sole ground of a circular of the department
stating that the petitiorier is a member of
Nentara Self Help Group but she has not
authorized and further name of the privatę
respondent namely Aarushi Priya whose name
was mentioned at Sr. No. -2 has been
recommended for selection for the same and
further may direct the S.D.O., Triveniganj to
cancel the P..D.S. license if any issued in the
place of the petitioner and issue license in name
of the petitioner for which she is erititle in
accordance with law, and may kindly direct the
respondent S.D.O. to not make any allotment if
license has been issued in place of the petitioner
to another person til final order of this writ
application.”
3. Even though the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has argued at length on merits of the
case, this Court is not inclined to go into the same as the
petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing a
complaint before the Divisional Commissioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents states that as per the amendment order Bihar
Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Second
Amendment Order, 2022, the Divisional Commissioner is the
competent authority for disposing off any complaint or
representation made by an aggrieved party.
5. Without going into the merits or demerits of the
case, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has a remedy
Patna High Court CWJC No.8481 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
3/3
of filing a complaint before the Divisional Commission as per
the amendment made vide notification dated 21.07.2022 under
Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Second
Amendment Order, 2022. The petitioner is directed to approach
the Divisional Commissioner ventilating her gievance against a
selection of the Respondent No. 05 as a PDS dealer within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. On receipt of the complaint, the Divisional Commissioner
shall pass orders strictly in accordance with law within a period
of eight weeks thereof. It is needless to mention that before
passing any order, all the parties shall be put on notice and given
an opportunity of hearing, besides submitting their objections.
Any order passed shall be communicated to the parties.
6. With the above direction, the present writ petition
stands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.