Patna High Court
Ajay Kumar Yadav @ Ajay YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The cancellation orders are set aside and the matter is remanded for furnishing the enquiry report and granting a hearing, as the original orders violated natural justice.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajay Kumar Yadav, challenged the cancellation of his P.D.S. licence (No.68/2012) by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Banka, on the ground that the show‑cause notice was issued without attaching the enquiry report, violating natural justice. He sought a writ of certiorari to set aside the cancellation order dated 23‑05‑2025 and the earlier office order of 14‑12‑2024, and asked for the licence to be re‑issued. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because an appeal before the District Magistrate was an alternative remedy. Relying on a prior Patna High Court decision (CWJC No.253 of 2014), the Court held that failure to provide the enquiry report and an opportunity to be heard renders the cancellation orders void. Consequently, the Court set aside both orders and remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to furnish the enquiry report, allow the petitioner to explain, and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks. The writ petition was allowed in part.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of the P.D.S. licence without furnishing the enquiry report and hearing violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal before the District Magistrate.
Subjects
- natural justice
- license cancellation
- PDS
- show‑cause notice
- certiorari
- administrative law
- due process
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14557 of 2025
======================================================
Ajay Kumar Yadav @ Ajay Yadav Son of Late Kapildeo Yadav Resident of
Village-Dumarjor, P.S.-Dhoraiya, District-Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Banka.
3. The District Magistrate, District-Banka.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Banka, District-Banka.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (04)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 Head 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, direction/
directions preferably in the nature of certiorari for
setting aside the order dated - 23/5/2025 passed in
license Cancellation (Supply) Appeal case no. 39/2024-
25 passed by the learned court of District Collector,
Banka by which the learned court was pleased to affirm
the order dated-14/12/2024 contained in memo no.
1218 by which the Sub Divisional Officer, Banka has
cancelled the P.D.S. license of the petitioner bearing no.
68/2012.
ii. For issuance of writ/ writs, order/ orders, direction/
directions for setting aside the office order contained in
memo no. 1218/dated 14/12/2024 passed by Sub-
Divisional officer by which the P.D.S. license of the
petitioner bearing no. as license no 68/2012 was
cancelled from immediate effect.
iii. For issuance of writ/ writs, order/ orders. direction/
directions for commanding and directing the
respondents concerned to re-issue the P.D.S. license of
the petitioner which was earlier cancelled on erroneous
Patna High Court CWJC No.14557 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/5
grounds without holding proper enquiry by the
authorities concerned so that the P.D.S. shop of the
petitioner in village Panchayat Raj Pour, Block -
Dharaya, District - Banka may again started. And the
poor beneficiaries may get subside Food Grains.
iv. And/or for any other relief/ reliefs which Your
Lordships may deem fit and proper to which the
petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
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.
4. 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 non-
supply of the enquiry report along with the show-cause is bad
and against the principle of natural justice and equity.
5. Learned counsel has stated that in view of the
above mentioned provisions of law and judgment relied by the
petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and matter
remanded back to the authorities concerned for furnishing a
copy of the enquiry report and any other material that they seek
to rely on and give an opportunity of filing his explanation and
thereafter take necessary action.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very
Patna High Court CWJC No.14557 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/5
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 an appeal before the
District Magistrate. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this
Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
7. 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 food-
grains 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 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14557 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
4/5
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."
8. 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.
9. 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 orders dated 23.05.2025 &
14.12.2024 passed by the District Magistrate and Sub-
Divisional Officer respectively are set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer (Respondent No. 4)
for furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and any other
material relied on the petitioner and call for his explanation by
giving reasonable time.
10. On such show-cause notice being served, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14557 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
5/5
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 order strictly in
accordance with law duly taking into consideration the
explanation submitted by the petitioner.
11. It is needless to mention that before passing any
order, 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.
12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is
allowed to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-
U
Checking your session…