Patna High Court
Lakshmi Narayan GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The show‑cause notice and the licence‑cancellation order are set aside as they violate Order 27(ii) of the Bihar TPD System Control Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice; a fresh notice must be issued in compliance with the statutory requirements.
Summary
Lakshmi Narayan Gupta, holder of PDS Licence No. 48 of 2016, challenged the cancellation of his licence by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, who issued Memo No. 339 (11‑09‑2025) and a show‑cause notice (08‑09‑2025) without attaching the enquiry report or stating a proposal for cancellation. The petitioner argued that this violated Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because a revision before the Commissioner was an alternative remedy. Relying on its earlier judgments in CWJC No. 253/2014 and CWJC No. 21202/2021, the Court held that a show‑cause notice must contain the enquiry report and expressly mention the proposed cancellation; otherwise it is invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside both the memo and the notice and remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to issue a fresh, compliant notice and afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Issues considered
- Whether a show‑cause notice issued under Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, is valid when it does not attach the enquiry report and does not state a proposal for cancellation of the licence.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief by way of certiorari and mandamus for the cancellation order despite the availability of a revision remedy.
- Whether the non‑compliance with Order 27(ii) violates the principles of natural justice and renders the cancellation order void.
Subjects
- PDS licence
- show‑cause notice
- natural justice
- administrative law
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
- licence cancellation
- procedural fairness
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16888 of 2025
======================================================
Lakshmi Narayan Gupta, Son of Pachakaudi Gupta, resident of ward no. 10,
Dhangawan, P.S.-Terari, District- Bhojpur, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Food and Civil Supply,
Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Piro, Bhojpur.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Tarari, Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Adya Pandey, Advocate.
Mr. Shubham Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raghwanand, GA 11 with
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, AC to GA 11.
======================================================
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 quashing the order
contained in Memo No. 339 dated
11.09.2025 issued under the signature of
Respondent Sub-Divisional Officer
whereby and whreunder PDS Licence
No. 48 of 2016 of the petitioner was
cancelled.
(ii) For quashing the notice
dated 08.09.2025 issued under the
signature of Respondent Sub-Divisional
Patna High Court CWJC No.16888 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
2/7
Officer, Piro whereby and whreunder the
petitioner was directed to file a show-
cause reply pursuant to the discrepancies
found during the online inspection on
05.09.2025.
(iii) For restoring the PDS
Licence No. 48 of 2016 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16888 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
3/7
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16888 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
4/7
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.
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16888 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
5/7
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16888 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
6/7
11.09.2025 in Memo No. 339 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Piro, Bhojpur as well as the notice dated 08.09.2025
issued by the Respondent-Sub-Divisional Officer, Piro are
both 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.
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16888 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
7/7
16. With the above directions, this Writ Petition
stands allowed to the extent indicated.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…