Patna High Court
Vinay ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The cancellation order is void because the show‑cause notice failed to comply with Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
Summary
Vinay Chaudhary, a PDS licensee, challenged the cancellation of his license by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Nawada, on the ground that the show‑cause notice did not attach the enquiry report nor state a proposal for cancellation, contrary to Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The petitioner argued that this breach violated the principles of natural justice and that the appellate authority had dismissed his appeal mechanically without addressing the defect. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because a revision before the Commissioner was an alternative remedy. The High Court examined prior decisions, notably CWJC No. 253 of 2014 and CWJC No. 21202 of 2021, which held that a valid notice must disclose the proposed cancellation and include the enquiry report. Finding the show‑cause notice defective, the Court set aside the cancellation order and remanded the matter for issuance of a fresh, compliant notice. The petition was allowed and the authorities were directed to follow the procedural requirements within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- The validity of the license cancellation order issued without a compliant show‑cause notice under Order 27(ii) of the Bihar TPD S Control Order, 2016.
- Whether the petitioner was denied a fair hearing by the non‑attachment of the enquiry report, violating natural justice.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of a revision remedy before the Commissioner.
Subjects
- license cancellation
- show‑cause notice
- natural justice
- PDS
- Bihar administrative law
- writ of certiorari
- writ of mandamus
- procedural fairness
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.159 of 2026
======================================================
Vinay Chaudhary S/o Bake Chaudhary, R/o vill- Masaurha, P.S.- Nardiganj,
Distt.- Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Pricipal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Bihar at Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Bihar
at Patna,
3. The Distrct Magistrate, Nawada at Nawada.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Nawada Sadar at Nawada,
5. The Marketing Officer, Nardiganj Block, at Nardiganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (4).
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 19-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) To issue a Writ (S)
Certiorari in nature setting aside the
order dated 17.09.2025 as contained in
Memo No. 767, issued under signature of
the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nawada
Sadar at Nawada, respondent No. 4, by
which the license No. 33/2007, EPDS
Code 123900100030, Gram Panchyat
Masaurha, Block Nardiganj has been
cancelled.
(ii) Further to issue a Writ (S)
Mandmus in nature directing the
Patna High Court CWJC No.159 of 2026(2) dt.19-01-2026
2/6
Respondent No. 4, the Sub Divisional
Officer, Nawada Sadar at Nawada, to
restore of PDS license No. 33/2007,
EPDS Code 123900100030.”
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
and there is no proposal for cancellation of the license in the show-
cause notice.
4. 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’).
5. 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.
6. Learned counsel has further stated that petitioner has
taken the above ground in the appeal, but the appellate authority
has not dealt with the above ground and dismissed the appeal in a
mechanical manner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on
Patna High Court CWJC No.159 of 2026(2) dt.19-01-2026
3/6
the judgment of the Full Court 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
notice is bad in law and contrary to Rule 27(ii) of the Control
Order, 2016.
8. Learned counsel has stated in view of the above
mentioned provisions of law and judgments 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 also furnish a copy of the enquiry report along with the
said show-cause notice and thereafter take necessary action.
9. 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 a revision before the Commissioner. Learned
counsel has therefore prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the
present writ petition.
10. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.159 of 2026(2) dt.19-01-2026
4/6
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.
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.159 of 2026(2) dt.19-01-2026
5/6
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.”
11. Further 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.”
12. 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 and that there is no
proposal of the action sought to be taken against the petitioner.
13. 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 17.09.2025 in Memo No. 767
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nawada Sadar Nawada 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.159 of 2026(2) dt.19-01-2026
6/6
Control Order, 2016 and also furnish a copy of the enquiry report
along with the Show Cause Notice to the petitioner and call for his
explanation by giving reasonable time.
14. 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 orders strictly in accordance with
law duly taking into consideration the explanation submitted by
the petitioner.
15. 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.
16. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands
allowed to the extent indicated.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…