Patna High Court
Ramesh Kumar TantiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
A show‑cause notice issued under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar TPDS Control Order must expressly propose cancellation of the license; otherwise the notice is invalid.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh Kumar Tanti, challenged a show‑cause notice issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer‑cum‑Licensing Authority under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The court previously set aside the impugned order for procedural defect, noting the notice did not comply with Rule 27(ii). The petition argued that a valid notice must propose cancellation of the license and specify the contemplated punishment. Relying on a full bench decision in CWJC No. 21202 of 2021, the court held that omission of a cancellation proposal renders the notice invalid. Consequently, the court set aside the order dated 26‑05‑2025 and remanded the matter for issuance of a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice, together with the enquiry report and a reasonable time for the petitioner to respond. The court directed that the entire process be completed within eight weeks and that any subsequent order be communicated to the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether the show‑cause notice issued under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar TPDS Control Order, 2016 is valid despite lacking a proposal for cancellation of the license
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer‑cum‑Licensing Authority complied with procedural requirements of the Control Order in issuing the notice
Subjects
- show cause notice
- licensing authority
- procedural fairness
- cancellation of license
- Bihar TPDS
- Rule 27(ii)
- writ jurisdiction
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11971 of 2025
======================================================
Ramesh Kumar Tanti S/o Late Dev Narayan Tanti, Resident of Village-
Rasulabad, Panchayat- Raipura, Block- Simri Bakhtiyarpur, P.S-
Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer
Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Saharsa.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer-cum Licensing Authority, Simri Bakhtiyarpur,
Saharsa.
4. The Assistant District Supply Officer, Simri Bakhtiyarpur, Saharsa.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Manish, Standing Counsel (05)
Mr. Arun Kr. Pd., AC to SC 05
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
8 06-04-2026 This is a second round of litigation. On earlier
occasion, this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024 passed in
CWJC No. 11292 of 2024 has set aside the impugned order
dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-
Licensing Authority solely on the ground that the show cause
notice issued to the petitioner was not in accordance with Rule
27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016.
2. A perusal of the show cause notice dated
01.03.2025 (Annexure P/10) issued to the petitioner by the Sub-
Patna High Court CWJC No.11971 of 2025(8) dt.06-04-2026
2/3
Divisional Officer (Respondent No. 3) reveals that even in this
particular show cause notice, there is no proposal for
cancellation.
3. A full Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 21202 of
2021 and analogues case 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.”
4. Having regard to the law laid down by this
Hon’ble Court in the above mentioned case, the present CWJC
is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer is set aside. The matter is again
remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer (Respondent No. 3)
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. The authority in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11971 of 2025(8) dt.06-04-2026
3/3
show cause notice shall specify the punishment that is proposed
to be given for violation of the control order, if any.
5. 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.
6. It is needless to mention that before passing any
orders, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing.
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.
7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is
allowed to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…