Anita Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9351 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Anita Kumari Wife of Jai Raj Kumar Resident of Village-Kumaitha, P.S.Halsi, District-Lakhisarai.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply Departmnet, Govermnet of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Principal Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Food and Supply Departmnet, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶8

The Chairman District Selection Committee-Cum-District Magistrate, Lakhisarai

¶9

¶10

¶11

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Lakhisarai

¶12

The Block Development Officer, Halsi Block, Lakhisarai

¶13

Anokha Kumari D/o Prakash Paswan Resident of Village-Pratap Pur, P.S.Halsi, District-Lakhisarai

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

======================================================

¶16

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Arvind Ujjwal (Sc4)

¶17

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 07-10-2025

¶19

1 . The Writ petition is filed for the following

¶20

reliefs:-

¶21

“(i) For issuance of direction

¶22

upon the resopndent authorities particularly respondent No. 3 and 4 to grant PDS License to the petitioner in

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.9351 of 2019 dt.07-10-2025 2/6

¶24

pursuance of application of land the application made by her on 30.01.2018 being application No. PDS/2270525.

¶25

(ii) For further to cancel License the PDS License issued in favour of respondent No. 6, Anokha Kumari whereby the respondent authorities without considering the objection raised by her have wrongly issued PDS License in her favour.

¶26

(iii) For further direction to cancel the PDS License if any issued in favaour of respondent No. 6 (Anokha Kumari).

¶27

(iv) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled int the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶28

2. At this juncture, the Learned counsel for

¶29

the respondents contended that Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides for the provision of appeal and

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.9351 of 2019 dt.07-10-2025 3/6

¶31

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

“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.”

¶33

(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 subclause (4) or until the appeal is disposed of, whichever is earlier.

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.9351 of 2019 dt.07-10-2025 4/6

¶35

(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.

¶36

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.

¶37

4. The remedy available under the Act is to

¶38

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

¶39

Commissioner.

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.9351 of 2019 dt.07-10-2025 5/6

¶41

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.

¶42

6. Taking into consideration that the petitioner

¶43

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

¶44

7. With the above said observation, the Writ petition is disposed of.

¶45

Patna High Court CWJC No.9351 of 2019 dt.07-10-2025 6/6

¶46

8. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall

¶47

stand disposed of.

¶48

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)

¶49

AMANDEEP/-