Patna High Court
Mahesh RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The cancellation order is set aside and the matter remanded for issuance of a fresh show‑cause notice in compliance with Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
Summary
Mahesh Ram filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his licence under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. He alleged that the issuing authority violated Rule 27(ii) by not attaching the enquiry report, not indicating a proposal for cancellation, and not providing the Block Supply Officer’s opinion, thereby denying him a fair hearing. The State argued that the petitioner had a statutory remedy under Section 32 of the same Order and that the writ was not maintainable. The High Court, relying on its earlier decisions, held that the show‑cause notice was defective and that procedural safeguards under Rule 27(ii) were mandatory. Consequently, the court set aside the cancellation order, remanded the matter for a fresh, compliant notice, and directed the authority to furnish the enquiry report and allow the petitioner an opportunity to be heard within a stipulated time.
Issues considered
- Whether the show‑cause notice issued under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 complied with Rule 27(ii).
- Whether the failure to attach the enquiry report and to propose cancellation renders the notice invalid.
- Whether the petitioner is required to first pursue the statutory appeal under Section 32 before approaching the High Court.
- Whether the cancellation order can be set aside on grounds of procedural irregularity.
Subjects
- Public Distribution System
- License cancellation
- Show‑cause notice
- Procedural fairness
- Administrative law
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order
- Rule 27(ii)
- Section 32
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16819 of 2025
======================================================
Mahesh Ram, Son of Mukh Lal Ram, resident of village- Maubehat, Ward
No. 6, P.O. and P.S. - Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga, Pin Code- 847423.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector, Darbhanga.
4. The District Supply Officer, Darbhanga.
5. The Licensing Authority cum Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Manigachhi, Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushalesh Choudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Binita Singh, SC 28 with
Mr. Ujjawal Bhushan, AC to SC 28.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 21-01-2026 Without going into the merits or demerits of the
case, the present writ petition is disposed of at the stage of
admission with the consent of both the Counsels.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the authority has issued the notice
without complying with the provisions of the Bihar Targeted
Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 more
particularly Rule 27(ii). Learned counsel has stated that the copy
Patna High Court CWJC No.16819 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
2/6
of the enquiry report was also not given to the petitioner and
there is no proposal for cancellation in the said show-cause
notice issued to the petitioner. Further, it is stated that though
the petitioner has given suitable reply to the authority to the said
show-cause notice, the authority has called for the opinion of
the Block Supply Officer and the said opinion of the Block
Supply Officer was also not served to the petitioner and
straightaway the authority has passed the impugned order of
cancellation solely based on the opinion of the Block Supply
Officer. Learned counsel has stated that the authority has not
adverted to the explanation filed by the petitioner to the show-
cause notice dated 12.03.2025, therefore, prays this Hon’ble
Court to allow the present writ petition and set aside the entire
proceedings.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Respondent-State has vehemently opposed the very
maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel has
stated that the petitioner is having an effective and efficacious
remedy of filing an appeal before the District Magistrate
against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Learned counsel
has further stated that the petitioner may be directed to file a
statutory appeal as provided under Section 32 of the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.16819 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
3/6
Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order and prayed
for dismissing the present writ petition.
4. 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
the petitioner to file his purposeful reply
and in absence thereof, the order
impugned in my opinion, are based on no
materials.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16819 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
4/6
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.”
5. 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.”
6. 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16819 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
5/6
7. 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 09.09.2025 in Memo No.
716 passed by the Licensing Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional
Officer, Sadar Darbhanga 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 his explanation by giving
reasonable time.
8. 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.
9. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16819 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
6/6
communicated to the petitioner.
10. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands
allowed to the extent indicated.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…