Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a candidate’s application for appointment as a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer. The Court held that the petitioner had an effective and statutory alternative remedy under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Since appeals and revisions are provided under the scheme, the Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was directed to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month, and the authority was ordered to condone any delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and decide the matter within three months
.
Facts
The petitioner had applied for appointment as a PDS dealer but his application was rejected by the District Selection Committee, which appointed another candidate instead. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court seeking to quash the rejection and to direct his appointment in place of the selected candidate.
The petition primarily argued that the selection process was unfair, arbitrary, and had wrongly excluded the petitioner despite his eligibility. However, the respondents maintained that statutory appeal and revision mechanisms existed under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and the writ petition was therefore not maintainable.
Issues
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against rejection of a PDS dealership application despite existence of statutory remedies under the 2016 Control Order.
- Whether delay in filing such remedies could be condoned.
- Whether the High Court should directly interfere in selection and appointment of PDS dealers.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that his application for dealership was wrongly rejected by the District Selection Committee and that another candidate was appointed despite alleged irregularities. He contended that the selection process was arbitrary and violative of his rights, warranting High Court interference.
He also submitted that while he intended to file an appeal or representation, the limitation period had already lapsed, and therefore he sought directions from the Court to enable consideration of his case despite the delay
.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents opposed the writ petition, arguing that Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides an effective appellate and revisional mechanism. Specifically:
- Section 32(iii): Provides for an appeal before the District Magistrate within 30 days.
- Section 32(v): Allows the Appellate Authority to stay the order pending appeal.
- Section 32(vi): Provides for revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within 60 days.
They argued that since the law provides these remedies, the High Court should not exercise writ jurisdiction. They further contended that the petitioner lacked locus standi to bypass statutory forums.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and noted that it expressly provides avenues for appeal and revision to address grievances relating to dealership appointments.
The Court reiterated the principle that writ jurisdiction is not maintainable when alternative statutory remedies exist, unless exceptional grounds such as violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of natural justice are established. In this case, the petitioner’s grievance related squarely to matters that could be adjudicated by the Appellate or Revisional Authority.
The Court also invoked Section 5 of the Limitation Act, clarifying that delay in filing an appeal/complaint could be condoned to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Precedent Analysis
While the judgment did not cite external authorities, the reasoning aligns with established precedents such as:
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998) — held that writ jurisdiction is barred where alternative remedies exist, save for exceptional cases.
- Union of India v. T.R. Varma (1957) and Satyawati Tondon (2010) — emphasized that High Courts must insist on exhaustion of statutory remedies before exercising Article 226 jurisdiction.
These principles guided the Court in declining to entertain the writ petition.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s grievance did not warrant direct writ interference, as the Control Order of 2016 created a complete mechanism to redress such disputes. The District Magistrate, being head of the Selection Committee, could not review his own order, and hence the proper course was to approach the Divisional Commissioner.
Recognising the petitioner’s concern regarding limitation, the Court directed the competent authority to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, ensuring that the petitioner was not left remediless.
Thus, while declining writ jurisdiction, the Court safeguarded the petitioner’s right to have his claim heard on merits by the appropriate authority.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Divisional Commissioner by filing a complaint/application within one month. It directed the authority to condone any delay and to dispose of the matter within three months of filing. Interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
Implications
This ruling reinforces judicial discipline in refusing to bypass statutory forums. It underscores that grievances relating to PDS dealer selection must be pursued through the appellate and revisional mechanisms under the Control Order. At the same time, it demonstrates judicial fairness by directing condonation of delay, ensuring the petitioner is not denied access to justice due to procedural technicalities.
For future disputes, this judgment clarifies that High Courts will insist on exhaustion of remedies, reserving writ jurisdiction for exceptional cases only.
FAQs
Q1. Can rejection of a PDS dealership application be directly challenged in the High Court?
No. The Court held that writ jurisdiction is not maintainable since statutory remedies under the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016 are available.
Q2. What is the remedy for an aggrieved candidate in PDS dealership selection?
The candidate must first file an appeal before the District Magistrate, and if unresolved within 60 days, a revision before the Divisional Commissioner.
Q3. Can delay in filing such an appeal or revision be condoned?
Yes. The Court directed that delay may be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, ensuring justice is not defeated.
