Patna High Court

Smt. Munna DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 11 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The failure to attach the enquiry report and to state the proposal for cancellation in the show‑cause notice violates Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and natural justice, rendering the impugned orders void.

Summary

Munna Devi, holder of a PDS shop licence, challenged the cancellation of her 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 Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The petition also sought to quash subsequent orders of the Commissioner and the District Magistrate that upheld the cancellation. The Court held that the procedural defects violated natural justice and the statutory rule, rendering the orders void. It set aside the orders dated 29‑12‑2018, 30‑05‑2017 and 11‑02‑2017 and remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to issue a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice. The Court directed that the enquiry report be attached, a reasonable hearing be given, and the entire process be completed within eight weeks.

Issues considered

The show‑cause notice issued without the enquiry report and without mentioning a proposal for licence cancellation violates Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and principles of natural justice.
Whether the orders of the Commissioner, District Magistrate and Sub‑Divisional Officer are liable to be set aside on that ground.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of a revision remedy before the Commissioner.

Subjects

natural justice
show‑cause notice
licensing
procedural fairness
Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
certiorari
writ petition
administrative law

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17031 of 2019
======================================================
Smt. Munna Devi, Wife of Dudhnath Singh, R/o Village-Mashrakh Gopalbari,
Police Station-Mashrakh, District-Saran at Chapra

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Saran, Saran at Chapra
2. The Commissioner Saran Division, Chapra
3. The District Magistrate Saran at Chapra
4. The Sub Divisional Officer Marhowrah, District-Saran
5. The District Supply Officer Saran at Chapra
6. The Assistant Godown Manager Chapra
7. The Block Supply Officer Mashrakh, District-Saran

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Narendra Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Arvind Ujjawal ( Sc4 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

4 11-02-2026 I.A. No. 02 of 2025

Interlocutory Application is allowed.

2. Registry is directed to make the necessary

amendment in the prayer portion of the present writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. The present writ petition has been filed for the

following relief(s):-

“…………… for issuance of a writ/writs, order/s
or direction/s in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the order dated 29.12.2018, passed by
the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra
(Respondent no.2), in Supply Rev. No. 92/2017,
whereby and where under the Respondent No. 2
Patna High Court CWJC No.17031 of 2019(4) dt.11-02-2026
2/7

has been pleased to dismissed the Supply
revision of the petitioner and further for
issuance of an appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders or direction/directions for which
the petitioner is found entitled by this Hon'ble
High Court in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”

5. The following para has been amended vide order

dated 11.02.2026 by way of I.A. No. 02 of 2025:-

“To issue of a writ in the nature of Certiorari
for quashing the order dated 30.05.2017 passed
by District Magistrate, Saran in Supply Appeal
No.07/2017 (contained in Annexure-4 of the
writ) and also quashing the order dated
11.02.2017 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer,
Marhowrah in Case No.13/2017 vide memo
No.293, whereby and whereunder the
respondent No.4 cancelled the licence of P.D.S.
shop of the petitioner and respondent No.3 also
dismissed the said Supply Appeal of the
petitioner on non-est ground erroneously
violating the provisions of law, and without
jurisdiction.”

6. 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.

7. Learned counsel has stated that non-mentioning of

the proposal for cancelling his license is contrary to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17031 of 2019(4) dt.11-02-2026
3/7

provisions of order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public

Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred

to as ‘the Order, 2016’)

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17031 of 2019(4) dt.11-02-2026
4/7

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.

12. 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.

13. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17031 of 2019(4) dt.11-02-2026
5/7

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 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."

14. 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. ”
Patna High Court CWJC No.17031 of 2019(4) dt.11-02-2026
6/7

15. 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.

16. 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

29.12.2018 passed by the Revisional Authority, order dated

30.05.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority and the order

dated 11.02.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer are set

aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer

(Respondent No. 4) 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.

17. 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17031 of 2019(4) dt.11-02-2026
7/7

18. 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.

19. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is

allowed to the extent indicated above.

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…