Patna High Court

Ram Prasad YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 21 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The cancellation order is set aside as it violated Rule 27(ii) and the principles of natural justice, and the matter is remanded for issuance of a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice.

Summary

The petitioner, Ram Prasad Yadav, challenged the cancellation of his PDS licence by the Sub‑Divisional Officer‑cum‑Licensing Authority, arguing that the show‑cause notice was issued without attaching the enquiry report and without stating a proposal for cancellation, thereby violating natural justice and Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The petitioner relied on earlier Patna High Court judgments that such procedural defects render a cancellation order invalid. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because a revision before the Commissioner was an alternative remedy. The Court examined the statutory requirement of Rule 27(ii) and the precedents, finding that the show‑cause notice was defective and the cancellation order was therefore ultra vires. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 16‑09‑2025 and remanded the matter to the licensing authority to issue a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice with the enquiry report, allowing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The writ petition was allowed in part.

Issues considered

The show‑cause notice issued for cancellation of the PDS licence complied with Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016?
Was the failure to attach the enquiry report and to mention a proposal for cancellation a violation of natural justice?
Is the writ petition maintainable despite the availability of a revision remedy before the Commissioner?

Subjects

natural justice
show cause notice
licence cancellation
PDS
Bihar
Rule 27(ii)
administrative law
certiorari
due process

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16879 of 2025
======================================================
Ram Prasad Yadav, Son of Late Eto Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-
Dhondhara, Police Station and Block-Meskaur, 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, Meskaur, District- Nawadah.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (26) with
Mr. Divit Vinod, AC to SC 26.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

2 21-01-2026 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. 295
dated 16.09.2025 issued under the
signature of Respondent No. 3 who is
Licensing Authority whereby and
whereunder without enclosing the enquiry
report along with show cause notice or
without serving the same to the petitioner
relying upon said Enquiry report, the PDS
Licence of the petitioner has been
cancelled in gross violation of principle of
Natural Justice as also contrary to several
judicial pronouncement of this Hon’ble
Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16879 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
2/6

(ii) For further direction upon
the Respondents concerned to reinstate the
PDS License of petitioner and allow him to
lift the food grains and other articles
attached to the PDS shop of the
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 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16879 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
3/6

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

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16879 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
4/6

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.
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16879 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
5/6

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

16.09.2025 in Memo No. 295 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16879 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
6/6

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.

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 above.

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…