Patna High Court
Sushma DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The order cancelling the petitioner’s PDS licence is set aside as it violated Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice.
Summary
Sushma Devi filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of her PDS licence by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, who issued a show‑cause notice without attaching the enquiry report and without stating a proposal for cancellation, contrary to Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the order was passed mechanically and that the appellate authority had not considered these grounds. The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable because a revision before the Commissioner was an alternative remedy. The High Court, relying on its earlier judgments in CWJC 253/2014 and CWJC 21202/2021, held that the failure to attach the enquiry report and to mention the proposed cancellation rendered the notice invalid. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for issuance of a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice with the enquiry report, directing the authority to afford a reasonable hearing before any further action.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of a PDS licence without attaching the enquiry report and without mentioning a proposal for cancellation in the show‑cause notice violates Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative remedy of revision before the Commissioner.
- Whether the impugned order can be set aside by certiorari.
Subjects
- PDS licence
- show‑cause notice
- natural justice
- Rule 27(ii)
- Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order
- certiorari
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16807 of 2025
======================================================
Sushma Devi, Wife of Late Birendra Singh, Resident of Village- Ohari,
Block- Roh, Police Station- Nawadah (Kadirganj), District- Nawadah.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food,
Supply and Consumer Affairs, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Nawadah.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Rajauli, District-
Nawadah.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Roh, District- Nawadah.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader 22
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of a writ in
the nature of certiorari setting aside the
impugned order bearing Memo No. 115
dated 15.06.2023 as contained in
Annexure P/5 issued under the signature
of Respondent No. 3 under which PDS
Licence of the petitioner has been
cancelled relying upon an enquiry report
submitted by the Block Supply Officer,
Roh but without enclosing the said
enquiry report along with show cause
and without serving the same to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16807 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026
2/7
petitioner in gross violation of principle
of Natural Justice the impugned order
has been passed which is not proper in
the eye of law.
(ii) For issuance of
appropriate direction upon the
respondent concerned to reinstate the
PDS Licence of the petitioner which has
been cancelled without issuing proposed
notice of cancellation of licence in view
of Clause 27(11) of Bihar Targeted PDS
Control Order 2016 and contrary to Full
Bench Judgment passed in CWJC No.
21202 of 2021 disposed of vide order
dated 26.09.2023 by this Hon’ble
Court.”
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 her 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-
Patna High Court CWJC No.16807 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026
3/7
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16807 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026
4/7
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16807 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026
5/7
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.”
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16807 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026
6/7
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
15.06.2023 in Memo No. 115 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Rajauli, District-Nawadah 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 also furnish a copy of the enquiry
report along with the Show Cause Notice to the petitioner and
call for her explanation by giving reasonable time.
14. On such show-cause notice being served, the
petitioner shall file her 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16807 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026
7/7
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…