Patna High Court
Dilip PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The orders dated 10‑Nov‑2017 and 31‑Mar‑2023 are set aside and the matter remanded for issuance of a fresh show‑cause notice and a reasoned order.
Summary
The petitioner, a PDS dealer licensed since 1990, challenged the cancellation of his licence by the Sub‑Divisional Officer (SDO) on 10‑Nov‑2017, alleging that no show‑cause notice was served after a third inspection on 15‑Oct‑2017 and that the order was issued on the instructions of the District Magistrate without a reasoned decision. The petitioner also appealed the appellate order of 31‑Mar‑2023 dismissing his statutory appeal, seeking certiorari and mandamus to enforce the Bihar Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The State argued that the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of a statutory revision remedy and that the cancellation was lawful as the petitioner failed to respond to earlier notices. The Court held that the SDO should have passed a reasoned order on merits and that the cancellation without a proper show‑cause notice violated natural justice, rendering both the 2017 and 2023 orders ultra vires. Consequently, the orders were set aside and the matter remanded to the SDO to issue a fresh show‑cause notice, afford a minimum ten‑day hearing, and pass a reasoned order within twelve weeks.
Issues considered
- The cancellation of the PDS licence without a show‑cause notice violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer acted ultra vires by following the District Magistrate’s instructions without a reasoned order.
- The maintainability of the writ petition in view of the availability of a statutory revision remedy.
Subjects
- PDS licence
- show cause notice
- natural justice
- certiorari
- mandamus
- administrative law
- Bihar Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13766 of 2023
======================================================
Dilip Paswan, Son of Shyam Lal Paswan, Resident of Village- Manpur, P.S. -
Fatehpur, District - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Department of Food and
Public Distribution, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Public Distribution, ,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
4. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
5. The Additional Collector cum Additional District Magistrate, Gaya.
6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya.
7. The Block Development Officer, Amas, Gaya.
8. The Block Development Officer, Tankuppa, Gaya.
9. The The Block Development Officer, Fatehpur, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Sushmita Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.S. Raza Ahmad ( AAG 5 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
11 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“(i) For the issuance of a Rule in the nature of
writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated
31-03-2023 passed by Respondent No.5, The
Additional Collector cum Additional District
Magistrate, Gaya whereby and whereunder the
P.D.S. Appeal No. 01/18 preferred by the
petitioner against the order dated 10-11-2017
passed by Respondent No.6, The Sub Divisional
Officer, Sadar, Gaya, whereby whereunder the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13766 of 2023(11) dt.09-02-2026
2/7
P.D.S. Licence bearing 01/90 has been
cancelled has been dismissed and the order
dated 10-11-2017 passed by Respondent No. 6
has been affirmed.
(ii) For the issuance of a Rule in the nature of
writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated
10-11-2017 passed by Respondent No.6, The
Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya, whereby
and whereunder the P.D.S. Licence bearing
01/90 has been cancelled without issuance of
any show cause notice for proposed cancellation
of his license on the basis of an inspection
conducted on 15-10-2017 and further, it has
been passed on the direction of the District
Magistrate, Gaya who himself is the Appellate
authority.
(iii) For the issuance of a Rule in the nature of
writ of Mandamus to follow the provisions of
Bihar Targetted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016 (In short- Control Order,
2016) in a just and proper manner.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is the PDS dealer who has
been granted the license in the year 1990 and he has been
functioning without complaint from any beneficiaries attached
to his shop. Learned counsel submits that on earlier occasion,
the respondents have inspected the shop of the petitioner on
05.05.2027 and 08.06.2017, thereafter, the Sub-Divisional
Officer has issued show cause notices to the petitioner vide
Letter No. 150/Aa dated 06.05.2017 and Letter No. 563/Aa
dated 11.06.2017 respectively (Annexure A and B of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13766 of 2023(11) dt.09-02-2026
3/7
supplementary counter affidavit). Learned counsel submits that
after issuance of the above two show cause notices the authority
did not take any action and it was presumed that they have
dropped the proceedings. Thereafter the authority again
inspected the shop of the petitioner on 15.10.2017, however no
show cause notice was issued to the petitioner after the 3 rd
inspection dated 15.10.2017 and straightaway the impugned
order of cancellation was passed on 10.11.2017 vide Memo No.
740/Go(Aa) (Annexure P/2). Learned counsel submits that the
authority after a fresh inspection without serving any show
cause notice or granting an opportunity to the petitioner to file
his reply, the license of the petitioner has been cancelled at the
behest of the District Magistrate. Learned counsel has drawn the
attention of the Court to the relevant paragraph of the impugned
order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer wherein the
authority has stated that the order of cancellation is passed as
per the instructions of the District Magistrate and taking into
consideration the earlier show cause notices issued to the
petitioner. Learned counsel submits that after the cancellation of
the license by the Sub-Divisional Officer the petitioner had
preferred statutory appeal before the District Magistrate but the
same was also dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2023
Patna High Court CWJC No.13766 of 2023(11) dt.09-02-2026
4/7
(Annexure P/1). Learned counsel therefore submits that the
impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is illegal,
bad, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural Justice
and equity and therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to set aside
the impugned orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as
well as the appellate authority and remand the matter back to the
original authority for issuing fresh show cause notice to the
petitioner duly enclosing the copy of the enquiry report pursuant
to the inspection done on 15.10.2017, the statements of any
beneficiaries, grant an opportunity to the petitioner to file his
explanation and thereafter pass a reasoned order.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the very
maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel
submits that the present writ petition is devoid of merits and this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to
dismiss the present writ petition filed by the petitioner solely on
the ground that the petitioner is having an alternative and
effective remedy of filing a statutory revision. Further learned
counsel submits that the earlier notices issued to the petitioner
remained unsubstantiated as the petitioner did not file any
explanation to the said show cause notices. That the authority
Patna High Court CWJC No.13766 of 2023(11) dt.09-02-2026
5/7
duly taking into note of the fact that the petitioner did not file
his explanation to the earlier two show cause notices, has passed
the impugned order of cancellation. Further it is stated that the
order passed by the Sub-Divisional officer does not suffer from
any infirmity and the same is in accordance with law. Even the
appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate
authority. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble
Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer dated 10.11.2017 reveals that the authority
while passing the impugned order has taken into consideration
the fact that the petitioner did not file his explanation to the
earlier two show cause notices issued in the month of May and
June, 2017 and further stated that he is passing the orders on the
instructions of the District Magistrate. Further it is to be noted
that after the 3rd inspection done on 15.10.2017, neither any
show cause notice was served on the petitioner nor the copy of
the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. This Court is
of the opinion that the original authority ought to have passed
the orders on merits irrespective of the fact as to whether the
petitioner has filed his explanation to the show cause notice or
not. The authority ought to have passed the orders on merits by
Patna High Court CWJC No.13766 of 2023(11) dt.09-02-2026
6/7
passing a reasoned order and not acted at the behest of the
District Magistrate. On this ground alone the impugned orders
are liable to be set aside.
6. Having regard to the above, the impugned order
dated 10.11.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well
as the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority
are both set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-
divisional Officer (Respondent No. 6) for issuing a fresh show-
cause notice to the petitioner duly enclosing the copy of the
enquiry report/s pursuant to the inspection done on 15.10.2017
and also the statements of beneficiaries if any. The authority
shall grant sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to file his
explanation preferably minimum period of 10 days. After
receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, the authority is
directed to pass a reasoned order giving reasons either for
accepting the explanation or rejecting the same. In case the
petitioner does not file his explanation even after receipt of the
show cause notice, even there also the authority is obligated to
pass a reasoned order.
7. It is needless to mention that before passing any
orders, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing.
The authority shall endeavor to complete the entire exercise as
Patna High Court CWJC No.13766 of 2023(11) dt.09-02-2026
7/7
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 12 weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any order passed
shall be communicated to the petitioner.
8. With the above directions, the present writ petition
stands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…