A public distribution system dealer whose licence was ceased in January 2022 must first take her grievance to the Divisional Commissioner, the Patna High Court has held, but because her writ petition was filed in 2022 itself, the Commissioner has been told to condone the delay liberally and decide within three months.
Patna: The Patna High Court on Wednesday, September 30, disposed of a writ petition by Lalita Devi, a public distribution system dealer from Gaya district, challenging the ceasing of her PDS licence, and directed her to approach the Divisional Commissioner under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 [Lalita Devi v. State of Bihar and Others].
Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy held that the statutory remedy must be availed first, but directed that the delay in filing the complaint be liberally condoned and that the Divisional Commissioner pass a reasoned speaking order within three months.
Background of the case
The petitioner held PDS Licence No. 01/2020 and ran a public distribution system shop. By memo No. 76 dated January 20, 2022, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya ceased the existence of her licence. She moved the High Court seeking to quash that order and a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer to continue allocation to her shop. The respondents were the State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, the District Magistrate, Gaya and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya.
What the parties argued
Arvind Ujjwal, Standing Counsel 11, for the State, contended that Rule 5(iv) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 gives ample opportunity to file a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner. The Court reproduced the Rule:
“Any aggrieved applicant against the recommendation embodied in the publication of the final merit list may file a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner within 15 days mentioning clear reasons with the evidences. The Divisional Commissioner will dispose vacancy-wise complaints. All complaints will be disposed of within a maximum period of 30 days from the date of its receipt.”
The judgment records no separate submissions by Advocate Binay Kumar, for the petitioner, beyond the reliefs sought in the petition.
Alternative remedy to be availed first
The Court observed that it was evident from the reliefs prayed for that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the 2016 Control Order, and held:
“The remedy available under the Act is to be availed at the first instance, before approaching the Court.”
The Court noted that the limitation period for filing such a complaint had lapsed, and therefore did not simply dismiss the petition.
Directions
Disposing of the petition, the Court directed Lalita Devi to file a complaint or application before the concerned authority within one month of receiving its order. It directed that the delay be liberally condoned by the Divisional Commissioner, given that the writ petition was filed in 2022 itself, and that the Divisional Commissioner dispose of the complaint by a reasoned speaking order in accordance with law within three months of its filing. The Court did not examine the merits of the order ceasing her licence.
Case Title: Lalita Devi v. State of Bihar and Others
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11247 of 2022
Bench: Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy, Patna High Court
Date of Judgment: September 30, 2026
Appearance: Advocate Binay Kumar for the petitioner; Arvind Ujjwal, Standing Counsel 11, for the respondents