Patna High Court
Laxman PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The cancellation order is set aside as it violated the procedural safeguards prescribed in Clause 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016.
Summary
The petitioner, Laxman Paswan, challenged the cancellation of his PDS license No. 54/16 issued under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. He argued that the Sub‑Divisional Officer cancelled the license on an erroneous ground and issued a show‑cause notice giving only 24 hours for explanation, contrary to the procedural requirements of Clause 27(ii) of the Control Order. The Court examined whether the notice complied with the mandated time‑frame and whether the authority had provided a fair opportunity of hearing. Finding that the notice was defective and the cancellation was therefore ultra vires, the Court set aside the impugned order. It remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to issue a fresh notice with at least ten days’ time, attach the enquiry report and beneficiaries’ statements, and pass a reasoned order after hearing. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of the PDS license complied with the procedural requirements of Clause 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
- Whether the 24‑hour show‑cause notice afforded the petitioner a sufficient opportunity of hearing.
Subjects
- writ petition
- license cancellation
- public distribution system
- procedural fairness
- show‑cause notice
- administrative law
- Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1259 of 2026
======================================================
Laxman Paswan, Son of Munshi Paswan, Resident of Village- Jahangira,
Village Panchayat- Rohi, Police Station- Barachatti, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar at Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sherghati, Dist.- Gaya.
4. The District Supply Officer, Gaya.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Barachatti, Dist.- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Avinash Gaurav, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. A. B. Sinha, Government Advocate (08)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“That this is an application for issuance of
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and
direction/directions 54 to quash the order dated
19-12-2025 contained in memo No.367 passed
by the Licensing Authority cum Sub Divisional
Officer, Sherghati, Gaya whereby the license
No.-54/16 of the petitioner granted under the
Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2016 has
capriciously been cancelled on erroneous
ground and for direction upon the respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.1259 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
No. 3 to continue allocation to the Public
Distribution System Shop of the petitioner after
declaring the cancelation order null and void
and/or pass such other order(s) as your
Lordships may deem fit and proper.”
3. A perusal of the show cause notice dated
17.09.2025 (Annexure P/5) reveals that the authority has given
only 24 hours time to the petitioner to file his explanation and
there is no proposal for cancellation of the P.D.S. license as
mandated under Clause 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
4. Having regard to the same, the impugned order
dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is set
aside. The matter is 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 Clause 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016. The authority shall
give sufficient time to the petitioner for filing his explanation
preferably 10 days from the date of serving the notice and the
authority shall enclose the copy of the enquiry report as well as
the statements made by the beneficiaries if any against the
petitioner along with the Show Cause Notice. After receipt of
the explanation to the show cause notice, the authority shall pass
Patna High Court CWJC No.1259 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
a reasoned order giving the reasons either for accepting the
explanation or for rejecting the same.
5. 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.
6. With the above direction, the present writ petition
stands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…