Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy condones delay for availing alternative remedy

In Vijay Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy delivered a 5-page long judgement dated October 10, 2025, where she disposed of the writ petition. She concluded: ''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 complaint/application within two 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.''

The writ petition was filed for to quash the merit list of vacant Public Distribution Shop License under Kesheshwar Sthan Block (Biraul Sub-Division) issued on September 1, 2017 by which Ram Govind Ram, the Respondent No. 12 was illegally selected in Merit List for the PDS shop License through the petitioner is much better in each and every corner than the State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, the Respondent No. 1. He was left out and the Respondent No. 12 was selected. 

Arbind Ujjawal, the 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) reads:“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.

Justice Chakravarthy observed: ''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.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that he intended 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.