Patna High Court
Md. Akbar vs The State Of Bihar on 16 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9618 of 2019
======================================================
Md. Akbar Son of late Md. Sakur Resident of Ward No. 5, Azamgarh Nagwan
Tola Jagdishpur, Post Office and Police Station- Sitamarhi, District-
Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector, Sitamarhi.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Sitamarhi.
4. The Sarpanch, Gram Katchahari Azamgarh, Block- Dumra, District-
Sitamarhi.
5. Ram Babu Sah, Pax Chairman, Panchayat Azamgarh, Block Dumra,
District- Sitamarhi.
6. Ram Pravesh Sah, Pax Secretary, Panchayat Azamgarh, Block-Dumra,
District- Sitamarhi.
7. Sanjiv Kumar, Son of Ram Pravesh Sah, Resident of Ward No. 5, Azamgarh,
Panchayat Azamgarh, Police Station- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Uday Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Arvind Ujjwal ( Sc4 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-10-2025
1. The present Writ petition is filed for the
following reliefs:-
"I. For issuance of writ in the
nature of Mandamus seeking direction to
respondent to modify and republish the
result of grant of licence for running Fair
Price Shop at Centre No. 354, Panchayat
Azamgarh in village Sheohar in which
Patna High Court CWJC No.9618 of 2019 dt.16-10-2025
in merit list illegally when he secured
higher marks than the candidate who was
placed at serial No. 1 but respondent
illegally without adding the marks of
gradation examination published the said
result.
II. For issuance of appropriate
writ in the nature of Mandamus seeking
direction to respondent to consider the
objection raised by petitioner and also
the marks sheet of his Graduation
Examination which was submitted by him
within time just after publication of result
but respondent illegally did not consider
the same only for grant of benefit of one
Sanjiv Kumar who is son of Secretary of
PAX.
III. For any other relief or reliefs
for which petitioner is entitled for."
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.9618 of 2019 dt.16-10-2025
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."
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9618 of 2019 dt.16-10-2025
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.9618 of 2019 dt.16-10-2025
complaint/application, the writ petition is disposed of
with a direction to the petitioner to file
complaint/application within two months 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.
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)
amitkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 18.10.2025
Transmission Date N/A
