Patna High Court
Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The cancellation order was set aside because the show‑cause notice failed to include a proposal for cancellation as mandated by Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, thereby denying the petitioner a proper hearing.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonu Kumar, challenged the cancellation of his Public Distribution System (PDS) license (No. 434/2016) by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, who issued a show‑cause notice without stating a proposal for cancellation and gave only 24 hours to respond, without furnishing the inquiry report. The petitioner argued that the notice violated Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which requires a clear proposal for cancellation and adequate time to file an explanation. The respondents contended that the petitioner could have appealed to the designated appellate authority and therefore the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court referred to its earlier Full Bench decision in CWJC No.21202 of 2021, which held that a notice lacking a cancellation proposal is invalid. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order, remanded the matter for issuance of a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice with the inquiry report, and directed that the petitioner be given at least ten days to respond and an opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the show‑cause notice issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer complied with Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
- Whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to be heard, rendering the cancellation order illegal.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative appellate remedy.
Subjects
- Public Distribution System
- License cancellation
- Show cause notice
- Writ of certiorari
- Procedural fairness
- Administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.148 of 2026
======================================================
Sonu Kumar, S/o Kankir Yadav, Resident of Village- Maina, Ward No.01, P.S-
Kash Nagar (Sonbarsa), District- Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Saharsa.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Saharsa.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Sonbarsa, Dist. Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (21)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 19-02-2026 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for seeking the
following relief(s)
“(i) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions in the
nature of certiorari for quashing the order
contained in Memo No. 1944-2 dated
25.09.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional
officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Sadar,
Saharsa by which he was pleased to cancel
the PDS license of the petitioner being
License No. 434/2016 Code 121400200110
Patna High Court CWJC No.148 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
2/6
on the basis of show cause notice where
there is no stipulation of proposed
punishment of cancellation and as such the
order impugned is bad and illegal and fit to
be set aside.
(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions to the
competent authority for correction in the
epos machine of the food grains which was
never physically handed over to the
petitioner and the same is showing on the
epos machine of the petitioner.
(iii) For any relief/reliefs for which the
petitioner is entitled in the eye of law.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner assails the impugned order passed by the Respondent
No. 3, i.e, the Sub-Divisional Officer on the following grounds.
I. That there is no proposal of cancellation as
envisaged under Rule 27(2) of the Bihar Targeted
Public Distribution System (Control) Order,
2016.
II. That the authority has granted only 24 hours
to the petitioner to file his explanation and the
copy of the inquiry report has not been furnished
to the petitioner.
4. Further it is stated that the copy of the 2 nd
Patna High Court CWJC No.148 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
3/6
inquiry report has also not been furnished to the petitioner and
only 24 hours has been granted to the petitioner to file his
explanation. Counsel submits that the petitioner has submitted
his explanation to the second show cause notice dated
04.09.2025, however, the authorities, except for stating that the
said explanation is not satisfactory, have not passed a reasoned
orders. Learned counsel submits that, in view of the judgment
dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Full Bench of this Hon’ble
Court in CWJC No. 21202 of 2021 and analogous cases, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded
back to the concerned authorities for issuance of a fresh show
cause notice along with a copy of the inquiry report, and for
granting sufficient time to the petitioner to file his explanation,
and thereafter to pass a reasoned orders.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents-State has vehemently opposed the very
maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel submits
that the petitioner is having an alternative and effective remedy
of filing an appeal before the appellate authority but the
petitioner without availing the same has straightaway
approached this Hon’ble Court which is not permissible.
Counsel submits that the present writ petition may be disposed
Patna High Court CWJC No.148 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
4/6
of by directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority.
6. This Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.21202 of 2021
and analogous cases has held as under:
“19. Accordingly, we answer the 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. ”
7. Admittedly as seen from the record, the initial
inspection of the shop of the petitioner has taken place on
19.05.2025 and thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner vide memo no. 1068-2 dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure
P/1). A perusal of the same reveals that the respondent
authorities have granted only 24 hours to the petitioner to file
his explanation and further there is no proposal for cancellation
of the PDS license of the petitioner. Thereafter the authorities
have inspected the PDS shop of the petitioner on 04.09.2025
and the show cause notice was issued on the very same day
(Annexure P/2) to which the petitioner has made his explanation
on 18.09.2025 (Annexure P/3). However, the impugned order
dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P/4) merely states that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.148 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
5/6
explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory.
Further, it is to be noted that even in the second show cause
notice there is no proposal for cancellation of the PDS license of
the petitioner.
8. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances
and also duly taking into account the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Court passed in CWJC No. 21202 of 2021 and analogous cases,
the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer is set aside. The matter is remanded back to
the Sub-divisional Officer 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, duly enclosing the copy
of the inquiry report relies by them and also the statements of
the beneficiaries if any. The authorities shall grant ample
opportunity to the petitioner to file his explanation preferably
within a period of 10 days from the date of the receipt of the
show cause notice. On receipt of the explanation submitted by
the petitioner, the authority concern shall pass a reasoned order
giving the reasons either for accepting or rejecting the
explanation submitted by the petitioner.
9. It is needless to mention that before passing any
orders, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing.
Patna High Court CWJC No.148 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
6/6
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.
10. With the above directions, the present writ petition
strands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…