Patna High Court
Hari Ballav DasversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
A show‑cause notice that fails to state a proposal for cancellation under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar TPD System Control Order, 2016, is invalid, rendering the cancellation and appellate orders void.
Summary
The petitioner, Hari Ballav Das, challenged the cancellation of his PDS license by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, arguing that the show‑cause notice dated 26‑12‑2022 did not state a proposal for cancellation as required by Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The petitioner also contested the appellate order of the Collector dated 21‑04‑2025, claiming it reiterated the same procedural defect. Relying on a prior full‑bench decision (CWJC No.21202 of 2021) that a notice must expressly mention a cancellation proposal, the court examined whether the notice was legally valid. The court held that the notice was defective, rendering the cancellation and appellate orders ultra vires. Consequently, both orders were set aside and the matter remanded to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to issue a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice and afford the petitioner a hearing. The petitioner was directed to submit his explanation within the stipulated time and the authority to pass a reasoned order thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether a show‑cause notice issued under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, is valid if it does not expressly mention a proposal for cancellation of the license.
- Whether the cancellation order and the subsequent appellate order can be quashed on the ground of procedural non‑compliance with the Control Order.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of his PDS license pending compliance with the proper notice procedure.
Subjects
- license cancellation
- show‑cause notice
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
- Rule 27(ii)
- administrative law
- certiorari
- mandamus
- procedural fairness
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14851 of 2025
======================================================
Hari Ballav Das S/o Late Sugdev Das, Resident of Village- Mahishi North,
Ward No. 06, Panchayat- Mahishi, P.S.- Mahishi, District- Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Saharsa.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar-cum-Licensing Authority, Saharsa.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Mahishi, Dist. Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (16)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 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. 1784/Go. Saharsa dated
26.12.2022 passed by the Learned Sub-Division
Officer Sadar Saharsa-cum-Licensing authority
by which he has cancelled the PDS license of
the petitioner being License No. 186/2016 (FPS
Code No. 121400200891) on the basis of a
notice where is no stipulation of proposed
cancellation.
(ii) For issuance of appropriate
Patna High Court CWJC No.14851 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/5
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in
the nature of certiorari for quashing the order
dated 21.4.2025 passed in Supply Appeal No.
01/2023 passed by the Learned Collector cum-
District Magistrate, Saharsa dismissed the
statutory appeal in the same manner as of the
Licensing authority that too without considering
the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner.
(iii) For issuance of appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to restore the license of the
petitioner being License No. 186/2016 (FPS
Code No. 121400200891).”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has stated that in the Show Cause Notice issued by the
Sub-Divisional Officer there is no proposal for cancellation of
the license. Learned counsel has stated that non-mentioning of
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’).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of the full Bench 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.14851 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/5
notice is bad in law and contrary to Rule 27(ii) of the Control
Order, 2016.
5. Learned counsel has stated 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 issuing a fresh
show-cause notice in terms of order 27(ii) of the Control Order,
2016 and thereafter take necessary action.
6. 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 exhausted
all the remedies and all the authorities have found that the
petitioner has violated the provisions of the Control Order,
2016. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court
to dismiss the present writ petition.
7. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.14851 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
4/5
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. ”
8. A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the
petitioner does not reveal that there is any proposal of the action
sought to be taken against the petitioner. Therefore, the same
has to held as bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Rule
27(ii) of the Control Order and has to necessarily set aside.
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 order passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer dated 26.12.2022 as well as the order passed by the
Appellate Authority dated 21.04.2025 are 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
and call for his explanation by giving him reasonable time.
10. On such show-cause notice being served, the
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14851 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
5/5
11. 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.
12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is
allowed to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Gauravkr/-
U
Checking your session…