Savita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8891 of 2019 ====================================================== Savita Devi W/o Surendra Kumar Resident of Village-Indrapurava Tola, P.S.- Baghila, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2.

The District Level Selection Committee, Rohtas at Sasaram through its Chairman.

3.

The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.

4.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram. 5.

The Block Supply Officer, Rajpur, Rohtas at Sasaram 6.

Sandeep Kumar Sharma Son of Mahendra Sharma Village-Dhawa, P.S. Banghaila, District-Rohtas ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Arvind Ujjwal (SC4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-09-2025

1. The Writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:- I. For quashing the Final selection list issued under the signature of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by which the name of the other applicants have been selected and recommended for grant of PDS License in Sianwk Panchayat, within the Block-Rajpur, District Rohtas at Sasaram without being consider that

2/5 petitioner is the suitable candidates in all respects.

II. Further the respondent be directed specially respondent No. 3 to decide the objection filed before him on 30.11.2018 by a reasoned order before grant of PDS license in Sanwk Panchayat, within the Block-Rajpur, District Rohtas at Sasaram.

2. At this juncture, the Learned 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) read as follows:

"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

3/5 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.

3. It is the specific contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already filed a representation before the respondent No. 3, i.e., the District Magistrate, and the same is still pending.

4. 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

4/5 Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 is to file 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 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.

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 one 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

5/5 concerned, and the authority shall dispose of the same within three months from the date of filing of the same.

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) AMANDEEP/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 24.9.2025 Transmission Date