Patna High Court

Naween Kumar TiwariversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 28 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

A show‑cause notice that fails to state a proposal for cancellation and does not attach the enquiry report is invalid, rendering the subsequent licence cancellation orders void.

Summary

The petitioner, Naween Kumar Tiwari, challenged the cancellation of his PDS licence by the Sub‑Divisional Officer and the subsequent affirmation of that cancellation by the Collector. He argued that the show‑cause notice was defective because it neither mentioned a proposal to cancel the licence nor attached the enquiry report, violating Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as a revision could be filed before the Commissioner. Relying on earlier Patna High Court judgments (CWJC No.253/2014 and CWJC No.21202/2021), the Court held that the notice was invalid and the appellate authority had acted mechanically. Consequently, the Court set aside both the Sub‑Divisional Officer’s order and the Collector’s appellate order and remanded the matter for issuance of a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice with the enquiry report and an opportunity to be heard. The writ petition was allowed.

Issues considered

The validity of a show‑cause notice issued under Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 when it omits a proposal for licence cancellation and the enquiry report.
Whether the appellate authority’s order can be quashed for not considering the petitioner’s submissions and violating natural justice.
Whether the existence of an alternative remedy of revision bars the filing of a writ petition.

Subjects

natural justice
show‑cause notice
licence cancellation
PDS licence
Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
certiorari
mandamus
administrative law

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13766 of 2025
======================================================
Naween Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Wakil Tiwari, R/o Village- Khanpur, P.S. and
Block- Manjhi, District- Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Saran at Chapra.
4. The Collector, Saran at Chapra.
5. The Licensing Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Chapra, District-
Saran.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Maker, District- Saran.
7. The Block Supply Officer, Nagara, District- Saran.
8. The Block Supply Inspector, Nagara, District- Saran.
9. The Block Supply Inspector, Maker, District- Saran.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (9)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

3 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

following relief(s):-

“(i) For issuance of writ/writs,
order/orders or direction/directions in the
nature of certiorari for setting aside the order
dated 04.02.2025 passed in Supply Appeal Case
No.05/2024 by learned Collector, Saran,
Chapra whereby and where under appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the order as
Patna High Court CWJC No.13766 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
2/7

contained in Memo No.3237 dated 01.11.2023
passed by the Licensing Officer-cum-Sub
Divisional Officer, Sadar Chapra has been
rejected without proper consideration of points
raised in memo of appeal as well as submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner.
(ii) For issuance of writ/writs,
order/orders оr direction/directions in the
nature of certiorari for setting aside order as
contained in Memo No.3237 dated 01.11.2023
passed by Licensing Officer-cum- Sub
Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chapra whereby and
where under PDS license no.77/2021 of the
petitioner has been cancelled with immediate
effect without appreciating the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(iii) For issuance of writ/writs,
order/orders direction/directions in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondent authorities
to restore the PDS license of the petitioner with
immediate effect so that the petitioner may start
distribution of ration to the consumers.”

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.13766 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
3/7

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

11.03.2015 wherein this Hon’ble Court has held that the

nonsupply 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.13766 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
4/7

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

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 foodgrains
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.13766 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
5/7

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-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
Patna High Court CWJC No.13766 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
6/7

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

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

04.02.2025 passed by the appellate authority and the order dated

01.11.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer are set aside.

The matter is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer

(Respondent No. 5) 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.13766 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
7/7

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.

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 is

allowed to the extent indicated above.

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Gauravkr/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…