Patna High Court
Shiv Shankar RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
A licence cannot be validly cancelled without furnishing the enquiry report and expressly stating a proposal for cancellation, as required by Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and the principles of natural justice.
Summary
Shiv Shankar Ray, a holder of a Public Distribution System (PDS) licence, challenged the cancellation of his licence by the Sub‑Divisional Officer (SDO) on the ground that the show‑cause notice did not include the enquiry report nor mention a proposal for cancellation, contrary to Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The petitioner argued that this breach violated natural justice and that the appellate authority had dismissed his appeal mechanically. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because a revision before the Commissioner was an alternative remedy. The High Court, relying on its earlier judgments (CWJC No.253 of 2014 and CWJC No.21202 of 2021), held that the SDO’s notice was invalid and set aside both the SDO’s cancellation order and the Collector’s affirming order. The matter was remanded to the SDO to issue a fresh show‑cause notice in compliance with Order 27(ii) and to attach the enquiry report, allowing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of a PDS licence without attaching the enquiry report and without expressly stating a proposal for cancellation violates Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of a revision remedy before the Commissioner.
- Whether the appellate authority’s dismissal of the appeal was a lawful exercise of its jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 — s. Order 27(ii)
Subjects
- natural justice
- show‑cause notice
- licence cancellation
- Public Distribution System
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order
- administrative law
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10691 of 2025
======================================================
Shiv Shankar Ray, Son of Ramdev Ray, Resident of Village- Mahuli, Block
Bochaha, P.S. Hathauri, District Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
3. The District Supply Officer, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, East Muzaffarpur.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Bochaha, District-Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Dr. Md. Raisul Haque, SC 10.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
5 16-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“This writ application has
been filed in the nature of Certiorari for
challenging the orders:-
(i) For challenging the order
dated 14.08.2024 passed by Learned
SDO, East Muzaffarpur whereby and
whereunder the License granted to the
petitioner being License No. 23-07-20-
02/2016 for carried out the business of
Public Distribution Shop in Panchayat
Bhutane, Block Bochaha, District
Muzaffarpur was cancelled on the
ground that he has failed to enclosed any
Patna High Court CWJC No.10691 of 2025(5) dt.16-02-2026
2/7
supporting document with regard to
shortage of food grains found at the time
of inspection.
(ii) For challenging the order
dated 02.05.2025 passed by learned
Collector-cum-District Magistrate
Muzaffarpur in Supply Appeal No. 01/25
whereby and whereunder the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the
order of the SDO East Muzaffarpur was
rejected and affirm the order of
cancellation dated 14.08.2024.
(iii) To issue writ/order/orders
directing the Licensing authority
especially Respondent No. 4 to restore
the PDS License of the petitioner which
has been wrongly and illegally
cancelled.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has stated that the Sub-Divisional Officer while
issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner has not enclosed
the enquiry report and there is no proposal for cancellation of
the license in the show-cause notice.
4. Learned counsel has stated that non-mentioning of
the proposal for cancelling his license is contrary to the
provisions of order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the Order, 2016’).
5. Further learned counsel has relied on the judgment
of this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.253 of 2014 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.10691 of 2025(5) dt.16-02-2026
3/7
11.03.2015 wherein this Hon'ble Court has held that the non-
supply of the enquiry report along with the show-cause is bad
and against the principle of natural justice and equity.
6. Learned counsel has further stated that petitioner
has taken the above ground in the appeal, but the appellate
authority has not dealt with the above ground and dismissed the
appeal in a mechanical manner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on
the judgment of the Full Court passed in CWJC No.21202 of
2021 and analogous cases dated 26.09.2023 to buttress his
contention that non-mentioning of the proposed action in the
show-cause notice is bad in law and contrary to Rule 27(ii) of
the Control Order, 2016.
8. Learned counsel has stated in view of the above
mentioned provisions of law and judgments relied by the
petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and matter
remanded back to the authorities concerned for issuing a fresh
show-cause notice in terms of order 27(ii) of the Control Order.
2016 and also furnish a copy of the enquiry report along with
the said show-cause notice and thereafter take necessary action.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very
Patna High Court CWJC No.10691 of 2025(5) dt.16-02-2026
4/7
maintainability of the writ petition and stated that the present
writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an
alternative and efficacious remedy of filing a revision before the
Commissioner. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this
Hon'ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
10. This Court in CWJC No. 253 of 2014 dated
11.03.2015 held as under:-
“In my opinion, irregularities
in maintenance of notice board or
maintenance of the stocks within the
premises of the petitioner are too trivial
and cannot form a basis for cancellation
of licence. No doubt there were other
serious charges against the petitioner
regarding non-issuance of cash-memo to
the consumers, distribution of lesser
amount of kerosene oil and non-
distribution of food- grains but
surprisingly even while making such
allegations, the names of such consumers
who are dissatisfied by such action of the
petitioner are conspicuously missing. The
allegations are sweeping in nature
without reference to any specific
consumer.
In my opinion the non-supply
of the enquiry report conducted by the
District Level Committee which is the
foundation for issuance of show cause
notice placed at Annexure-1 as well as
non-supply of names of such of the
consumers who had complained against
the petitioner as regarding the
irregularities in distribution of the food-
Patna High Court CWJC No.10691 of 2025(5) dt.16-02-2026
5/7
grains or the kerosene oil has prejudiced
the petitioner to file his purposeful reply
and in absence thereof, the order
impugned in my opinion, are based on no
materials.
Though it was strenuously
argued by Mr. Pandey that in absence of
any response by the petitioner the
allegations would be deemed to have
been admitted but in my opinion even if
the show cause reply was missing, the
orders passed by the statutory authorities
having civil consequences and resulting
in cancellation should reflect application
of mind. Unfortunately it is grossly
missing inasmuch as neither the order of
the Licensing Authority nor the order of
the appellate authority deal with the
materials which formed the basis to drive
home the charges. The orders impugned
are indefensible and cannot be upheld.”
11. Further this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 21202 of
2021 and analogous cases has held as under:-
“19. Accordingly, we answer
the reference as under:-
It is mandatory for a licensing
authority issuing a notice under order
27(ii) to a license to mention that there is
a proposal for cancellation of his license,
failing which such notice cannot be
treated to be a valid notice of giving
sufficient opportunity to the licensee to
state his case under order 27(ii) of the
BTPDS Control Order.”
12. A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the
petitioner does not reveal that the copy of the enquiry report was
Patna High Court CWJC No.10691 of 2025(5) dt.16-02-2026
6/7
enclosed along with the show-cause notice and that there is no
proposal of the action sought to be taken against the petitioner.
13. Having regard to the above facts and
circumstances and the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court, the
present CWJC is allowed. The impugned order dated
14.08.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, East
Muzaffarpur and the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the
Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur are both set
aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-Divisional
Officer for issuing a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner
strictly in compliance with the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the
Control Order, 2016 and also furnish a copy of the enquiry
report along with the Show Cause Notice to the petitioner and
call for his explanation by giving reasonable time.
14. On such show-cause notice being served, the
petitioner shall file his explanation within the stipulated time.
On receipt of the explanation submitted by the petitioner the
authority concerned shall pass a reasoned orders strictly in
accordance with law duly taking into consideration the
explanation submitted by the petitioner.
15. It is needless to mention that before passing any
orders, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing
Patna High Court CWJC No.10691 of 2025(5) dt.16-02-2026
7/7
The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. Any order passed shall be
communicated to the petitioner.
16. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands
allowed to the extent indicated.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.