Patna High Court

Md. Quaisar KhalidversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 24 April 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The cancellation of the licence was ultra vires; the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 only allows refusal of renewal, not cancellation, of a licence.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Quaisar Khalid, sought quashing of a cancellation order (Memo No. 1834 dated 09.06.2025) of his fertilizer retail licence issued under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. The authority cancelled the licence on the ground that the petitioner had not operated his PDS shop for over three years, even though the licence was still valid until September 2025 and a renewal application had not yet been filed. The State argued that the cancellation was permissible under Clause 11 of the Order, which allows refusal of renewal if the shop is not operational for one year prior to renewal. The Court examined Clause 11 and held that the Order only empowers the authority to refuse renewal, not to cancel an existing licence, and cited precedent (CWJC No. 1815 of 1969, 1971 PLJR 624) supporting this limitation. Consequently, the Court set aside the cancellation order and directed the authority to consider any renewal application on its merits within four weeks, disposing of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the District Agriculture Officer had jurisdiction to cancel the fertilizer retail licence before its expiry on the ground of non‑operation of the shop.
Whether Clause 11 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 permits cancellation of an existing licence or only refusal of renewal.
Whether the cancellation order is ultra vires and liable to be set aside.

Legislation cited

Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 — s. Clause 11

Subjects

fertilizer licence
cancellation
renewal
Fertilizer Control Order, 1985
administrative law
ultra vires
writ petition

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13865 of 2025
======================================================
Md. Quaisar Khalid, S/o Md. Nasim Uddin, Resident of Madanpur Chand
Bhag, Ward No. 02, P.S.- Araria Town, District- Araria, Proprietor of M/s
Kisan Fertilizer and Trading, Madanpur, Block- Araria, District- Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Director, Agriculture, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Agriculture, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Joint Director, Agriculture, Purnea.
4. The District Agriculture Officer, Araria.
5. The Block Agriculture Officer, Araria, District Araria.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Rajdfeep, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. K. Mandal, Standing Counsel (3)
Ms. Bittu Kumari, AC to Sc 3

======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

7 24-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

following relief(s):-

“………….. for quashing the order
contained in Memo No. 1834 dated
09.06.2025 passed by the District
Agriculture Officer, Araria by which the
retail license of the petitioner being
License No. 14A/2020-2021 issued
under the provisions of the Fertilizer
Patna High Court CWJC No.13865 of 2025(7) dt.24-04-2026
2/8

Control Order, 1985 has been cancelled
and further be pleased to restore the
license of the petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the license of the petitioner was

cancelled by the authority vide Memo No. 1834 dated

09.06.2025 (Annexure P/4) solely on the ground that the

petitioner has not been running the PDS shop for the last three

years. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was issued the

license on 23.09.2020 and the same was subsisting till

September, 2025 (Annexure P/1). However, the authority even

before the expiry of the said term has issued the show cause

notice to the petitioner on 24.04.2025 (Annexure P/2), to which

the petitioner had filed a suitable explanation. However, without

considering the explanation, the authority has cancelled the

license of the petitioner. Counsel submits that the authority does

not have the power or jurisdiction to cancel the license if the

shop of the petitioner is closed. That under the provision of the

Control Order, the authority can only decline to renew the

license of the petitioner if the shop is not running for the last

one year. However in this case even before the expiry of the

license period, the same was cancelled on a non existence

ground vide order dated 09.06.2025. That the petitioner was
Patna High Court CWJC No.13865 of 2025(7) dt.24-04-2026
3/8

running the PDS shop from the month of July, 2025. However,

the same was not taken into consideration by the authority

concerned. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble

Court to set aside the impugned order and direct the authorities

to consider the application made by the petitioner for renewing

his license.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the very

maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel has stated

that though the petitioner was granted a licence on 23.09.2020,

he has not operated the shop at any pointy of time and therefore

the very purpose and intent of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985

is being defeated. Learned counsel submits that the authority

duly taking into consideration the various fertilizers

requirements of the farmers in the area allots the fertilizer

license and in case the shop is closed the farmers who are

dependent on the fertilizers are severely getting effected and the

very purpose of issuing the license gets defected. Learned

counsel submits that as per Clause 11 of the Fertilizer Control

Order, 1985, the authorities have the power to cancel the license

of the petitioner in case the shop is closed for substantial time.

Further it is stated that the petitioner himself has admitted that
Patna High Court CWJC No.13865 of 2025(7) dt.24-04-2026
4/8

he was not running the shop for the last more than three years

and therefore the order passed by the authority is in consonance

with the provisions of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.

Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to

dismiss the present writ petition.

5. In order to appreciate the issue involve in the

present writ petition, it is necessary to extract the relevant

portion of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, more particularly,

Section 11 which reads as under:-

“11. Renewal of certificates of registration and
authorization letters
(1) Every holder of a certificate of registration
granted under clause 9 or authorization letter
granted or deemed to have been granted under
clause 8, desiring to renew such certificate or
authorization letter shall, before the date of expiry
of such certificate of registration or authorization
letter, as the case may be, make an application for
renewal to the Controller, in Form C, or to the
Notified Authority in Form A1, respectively, in
duplicate, together with the fee prescribed under
clause 36 for such renewal and a certificate of
source as required under clause 8.
(2) On receipt of an application under sub-clause
(1), together with such fee and certificate of
source, the controller may renew the certificate of
registration or the 9 Notified Authority, as the case
may be shall issue acknowledgement receipt of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13865 of 2025(7) dt.24-04-2026
5/8

renewal in form A 2. Provided that a certificate of
registration shall not be renewed if the holder of
the same did not sell any fertiliser during the
period of one year immediately preceding the date
of expiry of the period of validity.
(3) If any application for renewal is not made
before the expiry of the period of validity of the
certificate of registration or, as the case may be,
the authorization letter but is made within one
month from the date of such expiry, the certificate
of registration or, as the case may be, the
authorization letter shall be dealt as provided in
sub-clause (2) on payment of such additional fee as
may be prescribed under clause 36 in addition to
the fee for renewal.
(4) Where the application for renewal of certificate
of registration is made within the time specified in
subclause (1) or sub-clause (3), the applicant shall
be deemed to have held a valid certificate of
registration until such date as the controller passes
orders on the application for renewal.
(5) If an application for renewal of a certificate of
registration or authorization letter is not made
within one month from the date of expiry of their
period of validity ,the same shall be deemed to
have lapsed on the date on which its validity
expired and any business carried on after that date
shall be deemed to have been carried on in
contravention of clause 7.”

6. A perusal of the above provision makes it
Patna High Court CWJC No.13865 of 2025(7) dt.24-04-2026
6/8

abundantly clear that the authorities can refuse to renew the

license of any fertilizer shop owner if he is not running the shop

for the last one year prior to the date of seeking renewal.

However in this case, the authority has cancelled the license on

the premise that the petitioner has not been running the shop for

the last more than three years vider order dated 09.06.2025.

Admittedly in this case, the license of the petitioner was going

to expire on 22.09.2025 but even before the petitioner could

make his application seeking renewal the authority has

cancelled the license of the petitioner. This Court in CWJC No.

1815 of 1969 report in 1971 PLJR 624 has held as under:-

“6. Clause 7 of the Licensing Order
authorises the licensing authority to cancel
the licence if the holder of the licence or his
agent or servant or any other person acting
on his behalf contra-venes any of the terms
and conditions of the licence and on no other
ground. Even assuming that the petitioner
was not carrying off any business which the
petitioner has tried to explain by stating that
it was not able to carry on business because
of certain export restrictions put under the
law. The licence could not be cancelled on
that account. It was not a term or condition of
the licence that the licencee must carry on the
wholesale business. It may well be that, under
Patna High Court CWJC No.13865 of 2025(7) dt.24-04-2026
7/8

Clause 6 of the Licensing Order, on that
ground the renewal of the licence could be
refused but cancellation could not be made on
that ground. It was not within the power of
the licensing authority to cancel a foodgrain
licence on the ground that the licensee,
during the period for which the licence has
been granted, does not carry on the
business.”

7. Admittedly in the present case also, there is no

provision under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 for cancelling

the license of any fertilizer shop owner in case the shop is

closed or not being run, irrespective of the said period. The

authorities can only decline to renew the license if the shop is

closed for a period of 1 year prior to the date of renewal of his

license.

8. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and

circumstances, the impugned order of cancellation dated

09.06.2025 passed by the District Agriculture Officer, Araria is

set aside. In case the petitioner makes any application seeking

renewal of the license, the authority shall consider the same on

its own merits and pass necessary orders. The authority shall do

the needful as expeditiously as possible preferably within a

period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the application for
Patna High Court CWJC No.13865 of 2025(7) dt.24-04-2026
8/8

renewal of license by the petitioner.

9. With the above directions, the present writ petition

stands disposed of.

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…