Disposed¶39

Priyanka Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Jun 2026CWJC/19560/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PDS wholesale dealership licence; mandamus; alternative remedy; Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016; Section 32(iii) appeal to District Magistrate; Section 32(vi) revision to Divisional Commissioner; District Magistrate head of Selection Committee; condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; time-bound disposal within three months; fair opportunity of hearing; Patna High Court; CWJC No. 19560 of 2019; Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy; disposed 23-06-2026.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner (concerned authority) within one month; delay in filing to be condoned; the authority to dispose of the same within three months after affording the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing. ¶39

Priyanka Kumari Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking a mandamus to grant the petitioner a wholesale PDS dealership licence should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal and revision under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and what directions should issue regarding limitation and time-bound disposal.

¶28

Court's answer

The petitioner has an alternative remedy under the provisions of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The remedy available is an appeal before the District Magistrate; as the District Magistrate is the head of the Selection Committee he cannot review his orders in appeal, therefore the petitioner is directed to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner.

¶29

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a complaint/application before the concerned authority within one month from the date of receipt of the order.ratio¶35
The delay in filing the complaint/application shall be condoned by the authority concerned.ratio¶35
The authority shall dispose of the complaint/application within three months from the date of filing, and before passing any order the petitioner shall be given a fair opportunity of hearing.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.), Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19560 of 2019, decided 23-06-2026: writ petition seeking mandamus to grant the petitioner a wholesale dealership licence under the Public Distribution System. Held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 - Section 32(iii) provides an appeal to the District Officer/District Magistrate and Section 32(vi) a revision to the Divisional Commissioner; since the District Magistrate is the head of the Selection Committee he cannot review his own orders in appeal, the petitioner was directed to file a complaint/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month, the delay in filing condoned, with disposal within three months and a fair opportunity of hearing before any order. Writ petition disposed of; interlocutory applications, if any, disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19560 of 2019

¶2

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

¶3

Priyanka Kumari Daughter of Govardhan Yadav resident of Dira Chandpur, P.S. Falka, District- Katihar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Collector, Katihar.

¶7

The Sub- Divisional Officer, Sadar, Katihar.

¶8

¶9

¶10

The Supply Officer, Katihar.

¶11

The Block Development Officer Sameli Katihar.

¶12

Rubi Kumari Wife of Priyatam Prakash resident of Dira Chandpur, P.S. Falka, District Katihar.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.S. Raza Ahmad (AAG-5)

¶14

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

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

Date : 23-06-2026

¶17

1. The writ petition is filed for the following

¶18

reliefs:-

¶19

“I. For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or orders directing and commanding the respondent authorities to consider and grant the whole-sale licence of dealership of Public Distribution System, (hereinafter to be referred as PDS) in favour of the petitioner

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.19560 of 2019 dt.23-06-2026 2/5

¶21

ii. Any other order or orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶22

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:

¶23

“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.”

¶24

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

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.19560 of 2019 dt.23-06-2026 3/5

¶26

giving a reasonable opportunity to the other party under sub-clause (4) or until the appeal is disposed of, whichever is earlier.

¶27

(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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.19560 of 2019 dt.23-06-2026 4/5

¶31

complaint/application before the Divisional

¶32

Commissioner.

¶33

5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner

¶34

contended that he intends to file a complaint/application before the concerned authority, but the limitation period for filing the same has lapsed. He further prayed for a direction to the concerned authority to entertain the same in accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶35

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 concerned, and the authority shall dispose

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.19560 of 2019 dt.23-06-2026 5/5

¶37

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

¶38

given a fair opportunity of hearing.

¶39

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

¶40

8. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶41

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)

¶42

Manish/-

¶43

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	23.06.2026
Transmission Date	23.06.2026

Priyanka Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Krishna Kumar Vikash Vs The State of Bihar

Nagina Khatoon, Vs The State of Bihar

Barun Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sri Ashokdham General and Surgical Hospital Vs The State of Bihar

M/s Eazzycon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India