Patna High Court
Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey @ Ashok Kumar PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
A show‑cause notice that does not state a proposal for cancellation under Rule 27(ii) is invalid, and any orders based on it must be set aside.
Summary
Ashok Kumar Pandey filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his PDS licence (No.33/2021) by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, which was affirmed by the District Magistrate. The petitioner argued that the show‑cause notice issued under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, failed to state a proposal for cancellation, rendering it invalid. The respondents contended that the petition was non‑maintainable as all remedies had been exhausted and the licence holder had violated the Order. Relying on a prior full‑bench decision (CWJC No. 21202 of 2021), the court held that a notice under Rule 27(ii) must expressly mention the proposed cancellation; otherwise it does not provide a fair opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the court set aside both the SDO’s order dated 31‑12‑2024 and the District Magistrate’s order dated 15‑04‑2025 and remanded the matter for issuance of a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice. The court directed that the petitioner be given reasonable time to respond and that the authority pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether a show‑cause notice issued under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, must expressly mention a proposal for cancellation of the licence.
- Whether the failure to mention such a proposal renders the notice invalid and the subsequent cancellation orders ultra vires.
Subjects
- Public Distribution System
- Licence cancellation
- Show‑cause notice
- Rule 27(ii)
- Administrative law
- Writ petition
- Due process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16954 of 2025
======================================================
Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey @ Ashok Kumar Pandey, Son of Rameshwar
Pandey, Resident of Panchayat Kanhauli, Block Baniyapur, PS Baniyapur,
District Saran, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and
Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, District Saran.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Chapra, Saran at Chapra.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Baniyapur, Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader 26
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 21-01-2026 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for seeking the
following relief(s)
“(i) For issuance of appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the order
dated 15.04.2025 passed in Supply
Appeal No. 03/2025 passed by the
District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra,
whereby and whereunder he has
confirmed the order dated 31.12.2024
passed by the Learned SDO-cum-
Licensing Authority, The Sub-Divisional
Officer, Sadar Chapra, Saran at Chapra.
(ii) Further for quashing the order dated
31.12.2024 passed by the Learned SDO-
Patna High Court CWJC No.16954 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
2/5
cum-Licensing Authority Sadar Chapra,
Saran at Chapra by which the PDS
License of the petitioner being License
No. 33/2021 has been cancelled.”
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
remanded back to the authorities concerned for issuing a fresh
show-cause notice in terms of order 27(ii) of the Control
Patna High Court CWJC No.16954 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
3/5
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 has to held as bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of
Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order and has to necessarily set
Patna High Court CWJC No.16954 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
4/5
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 dated
15.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra
and the order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Sadar Chapra, Saran at
Chapra 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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16954 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
5/5
date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any order passed shall
be communicated to the petitioner.
12. With the above directions, the present Writ
Petition is allowed to the extent indicated.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…