The Patna High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an effective statutory remedy exists under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The Court directed that aggrieved parties must approach statutory appellate/revisional authorities before invoking writ jurisdiction. This judgment consolidates existing precedent and guides similar administrative disputes across the State.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWJC/23883/2018 of Sangita Kuwar @ Sangita Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors |
| CNR | BRHC010549072018 |
| Date of Registration | 11-12-2018 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY |
| Court | Patna High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Bihar |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Service Law regarding PDS License allocation |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction when an alternative statutory remedy exists. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that where the Bihar TPDS (Control) Order, 2016 provides a statutory remedy of appeal and revision, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked. The petitioner must first pursue the alternate remedy provided under the statute. Directions were issued to approach the Divisional Commissioner within one month, with disposal within three months. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Provisions of Bihar TPDS (Control) Order, 2016; Section 5 of the Limitation Act. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner challenged the selection of Respondent No. 6 for PDS license under Backward Female Category, claiming her objection was not decided and noting the statutory appeal/revision remedy under the Bihar TPDS Order, 2016. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Bihar |
| Follows | Statutory framework under Bihar TPDS (Control) Order, 2016 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that where a statutory appellate/revisional mechanism is provided, writ petitions under Article 226 are generally not maintainable until statutory remedies are exhausted.
- Clarifies that delay in filing the statutory application may be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- Directs application within one month and decision within three months by the competent authority.
- Underscores the need to advise clients to utilize available statutory remedies before approaching the High Court.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court referred to Sections 32(iii), 32(v), and 32(vi) of the Bihar TPDS (Control) Order, 2016, which provide for appeal and revision against orders relating to grant or denial of PDS licenses.
- Observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner fall squarely within the scope of those statutory remedies.
- Noted that the District Magistrate, being head of the selection committee, cannot review his own order; the proper forum is the Divisional Commissioner via the revisionary process.
- Exercised discretion to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, ensuring the petitioner is not deprived of statutory remedy due to lapse of time.
- Disposed of the writ petition with directions to file the application within one month and for the authority to dispose it within three months after a fair hearing.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought quashing of the final selection list for PDS license under Backward Female Category.
- Claimed the objection submitted was not decided.
- Intended to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner.
- Pointed out that the period for filing such application had lapsed.
- Requested that delay be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Respondents
- Argued that Sections 32(iii) and 32(vi) of the Bihar TPDS (Control) Order, 2016, provide for appeal and revision.
- Emphasized the existence of effective statutory remedies to be exhausted before approaching the writ court.
Factual Background
The dispute concerned selection for a PDS license under the “Backward Female Category” for Mokar Panchayat, Rohtas. The petitioner challenged the selection of another candidate and argued that her objection was not considered. The Court noted that statutory provisions under the Bihar TPDS (Control) Order, 2016 provided appeal and revision mechanisms for such disputes.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 32(iii), 32(v), and 32(vi) of Bihar TPDS (Control) Order, 2016:
- Section 32(iii): Appeal to the District Officer against denial or cancellation of PDS license, to be filed within thirty days and disposed within sixty days.
- Section 32(v): Appellate authority may stay implementation of the order under appeal.
- Section 32(vi): If the appeal is not decided within sixty days or if aggrieved by the appellate order, revision may be filed before the Divisional Commissioner, to be disposed within two months.
- Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The Court allowed for the condonation of delay in approaching the revisional authority, directing application of Section 5 principles.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded in the judgment; the judgment is singular.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court directed the competent authority to condone delay if the application is filed within one month from receipt of the order.
- Directed the authority to dispose of the application within three months, ensuring expedited grievance redressal.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed the settled law that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked where an effective alternative statutory remedy exists.