Ram Bilas Ravidas v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.53 of 2019 ====================================================== Ram Bilas Ravidas Son of Late Kanu Ravidas, Resident of Village- Baraini, Police Station- Charki, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Gaya, District- Gaya. 3.

The Sub Divisional Officer Sadar, Gaya, District- Gaya. 4.

The District Supply Officer Gaya, District- Gaya. 5.

The Block Supply Officer, Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr.S. Raza Ahmad- Aag5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER 09-09-2025

1. The writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:

For directing the Respondents for disposal of Supply Appeal No. 125 of 2007 arising out of order dated 07.09.2007 contained in Memo No.

997, passed by the Respondent No. 3 by which, P.D.S. Licence No.

17/92 was cancelled and his shop was attached with other P.D.S.

Dealers. The petitioner further prays for direction of this Court

2/4 that his P.D.S. Licence be restored be restored."

2. At this juncture, the Learned counsel for the respondents contended that Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides for the provision of revision. Section 32(v) and (vi) read as follows:

"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

3/4 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, the present case is filed against the order of District Magistrate in Supply Appeal No. 125 of 2007 dated 07.09.2007.

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 revision before

4/4 the Divisional Commissioner, but the limitation period for filing the revision has lapsed. He prayed for a direction to the concerned Divisional Commissioner to entertain the revision petition in accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

6. Taking into consideration that the petitioner has an alternative remedy for filing a revision, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file the revision petition within one month from the date of receipt of this order before the Divisional Commissioner. The delay in filing the revision shall be condoned by the Divisional Commissioner, and the authority shall dispose of the revision within three months from the date of filing of the revision petition.

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) Saif/- U