Patna High Court
Rajeev Ranjan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The show‑cause notice is invalid for not complying with Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar TPD System (Control) Order, 2016, and the cancellation order is set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, challenged the cancellation of his PDS license (No.02/2019) by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, who issued a memo on 13‑08‑2025 without expressly stating a proposal to cancel the license in the show‑cause notice. He argued that this omission violated Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which mandates that a notice must mention any proposed cancellation. Relying on a prior full‑bench decision (CWJC No.21202 of 2021), the court held that the notice was legally defective and could not constitute a valid opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the court set aside the cancellation order and remanded the matter to the licensing authority to issue a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice, allowing the petitioner reasonable time to respond. The court also directed that the subsequent proceedings be completed within eight weeks and that any further order be communicated to the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether the failure to mention a proposal for cancellation in the show‑cause notice violates Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite alleged exhaustion of remedies.
Subjects
- PDS license
- show‑cause notice
- procedural fairness
- administrative law
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
- Rule 27(ii)
- writ petition
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16268 of 2025
======================================================
Rajeev Ranjan Kumar S/o Surendra Sharma Resident of Village- Dawthu,
P.O.- Gangapur, Block- Dawthu, P.S.- Hulasganj, District- Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Jehanabad.
3. The Licensing Authority- Cum- Sub Divisional Officer, Jehanabad.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Hulasganj, District- Jehanabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (16)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 19-01-2026 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for seeking the
following relief(s):-
“That this writ application is being
filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the
order contained in Memo No. 973/Aa dated
13.08.2025 passed by the Learned Sub
Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority,
Jehanabad by which he was pleased to cancel
the PDS license of the petitioner being License
No. 02/2019 on the trivial allegations and
further be pleased to restore the license and
supply of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16268 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
2/5
2. That the petitioner is filing this
application before this court against the
impugned order dated 13.08.2025 for the first
time because the petitioner has got no other
alternative or efficacious remedy except to move
this Hon'ble court for the relief sought for in this
application.”
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16268 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
3/5
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16268 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
4/5
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 13.08.2025 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 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.
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16268 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
5/5
12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is
allowed to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Gauravkr/-
U
Checking your session…