Ajit Kumar Suman, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21005 of 2019 ====================================================== Ajit Kumar Suman, Son of Sri Ram Chandra Ram, Resident of VillageBabhanpura under Gram Panchayat Dakshini Barawn, P.O.-Kharari, P.S.- Nokha, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.

3.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Sasaram, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. 4.

The District Supply Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram. 5.

The District Education Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram. 6.

The Block Development Officer, Nokha, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. 7.

The Block Supply Officer, Nokha, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. 8.

Narendra Ram, Son of Ram Ram, Resident of Village-Babhanpura, P.O.- Kharari, P.S.-Nokha, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5 For Respondent No.8 :

Mr. Jubair Ansari, Advocate :

Mr. Obadur Rahman, Advocate :

Mr. Nazmeen Khatoon, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-06-2026

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

"For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to the respondents to make an enquiry about the matriculation Certificate of the Respondent no.8 since the Respondent

2/5 no.8 passed the two different years of Annual Examination of matriculation by changing his name and parent's name and further to place the name of the petitioner at S.No.1 of the final merit list of Public Distribution Dealership of Gram Panchayat Dakshini Barawn Block Nokha (Rohtas) in accordance with law."

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 practicable, dispose the appeal within a period of sixty days."

3/5

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. 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

4/5 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 representation 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 representation, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file representation 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

5/5 the authority concerned, and the authority shall dispose of the same within three months from the date of filing of the same. It is needless to mention that before passing any order the petitioner should be given a fair opportunity for hearing.

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