Patna High Court

Ajit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 March 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The orders cancelling the licence are set aside as they were passed without complying with the requirements of natural justice, and the matter is remanded for proper notice, hearing and reasoned order.

Summary

The petitioner, Ajit Kumar, challenged the cancellation of his PDS shop licence by various authorities, alleging that the show‑cause notices were issued without attaching the enquiry report or the statements of complainants, violating natural justice. He sought certiorari to quash the orders of the Sub‑Divisional Officer, the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, and mandamus for restoration of the licence. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because an appeal before the District Magistrate was available. The court examined the earlier Patna High Court judgment (CWJC No. 253 of 2014) which held that non‑supply of the enquiry report defeats the principles of natural justice. Finding that the show‑cause notices indeed lacked the enquiry report and that the authorities had not applied their mind, the court set aside all three impugned orders and remanded the matter for the authorities to furnish the report, allow the petitioner to be heard and pass a reasoned order within a stipulated time. The writ petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the cancellation of the PDS licence without furnishing the enquiry report and beneficiaries' statements violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal before the District Magistrate.
Whether the orders of the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Collector and Divisional Commissioner can be quashed by certiorari.

Subjects

natural justice
due process
license cancellation
public distribution system
writ of certiorari
mandamus
show‑cause notice
administrative law

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15837 of 2024
======================================================
Ajit Kumar, Son of Yogedra Prasad Roy resident of Jay Krishana Road,
Gurhatta, P.S. -Patna City, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Patna
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Patna City, District- Patna.
5. The Assistant District Supply Officer, Patna City, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (23) with
Mr. Arvind Kumar, AC to GP 23.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

5 16-03-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the

following reliefs:-

“(i) For issuance of writ of
certiorari for quashing the order dated
11.06.2024 passed by Divisional
Commissioner, Patna in BTPDS Control
Revision No. 102 of 2023 by which the
Divisional Commissioner has been pleased
to rejected the Revision petition of the
petitioner.
(ii) For issuance of writ of
certiorari for quashing the order dated
3.12.2022 passed by Collector, Patna in E.C.
Appeal No. 9 of 2022-23 whereby and where
under the Collector has been pleased to
Patna High Court CWJC No.15837 of 2024(5) dt.16-03-2026
2/5

reject the Appeal of the petitioner and uphold
the order passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer, Patna City cancelling the P.D.S.
license of the petitioner.
(iii) For issuance of writ of
certiorari for quashing the order dated
17.07.2021 passed by Sub Divisional Officer,
Patna City, contained in Memo No. 501
dated 19.07.2021 whereby and whereunder
the license no. 124/2016 of the petitioner for
running PDS Shop has been cancelled on the
ground the enquiry report of the enquiry
officer (Joint Team) who has been alleged to
enquiry the shop of the petitioner on
31.05.2021 not served upon the petitioner
and also no statement of the beneficiaries
has been served upon the petitioner, who are
alleged to complain against the petitioner.
(iv)For issuance of writ of
mandamus for the restoration of the license
of petitioner numbered as 124/2016 and also
for the allotment of food grain and other
items for the distribution amongst the card
holders who are attached with the shop of
petitioner.”

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

in law and against the principle of natural justice and equity.

5. Learned counsel has stated in view of the above
Patna High Court CWJC No.15837 of 2024(5) dt.16-03-2026
3/5

mentioned provisions of law and judgment relied by the

petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and the 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

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.15837 of 2024(5) dt.16-03-2026
4/5

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."

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 order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the

Divisional Commissioner, Patna, the order dated 03.12.2022

passed by the District Magistrate, Patna and the order dated

17.07.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna City,

Patna are all set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-
Patna High Court CWJC No.15837 of 2024(5) dt.16-03-2026
5/5

Divisional Officer, Patna City, Patna 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

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 8 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, the present Writ

Petition is allowed to the extent indicated.

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…