Patna High Court

Hare Murari PrasadversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 27 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The cancellation order is set aside because the show‑cause notice failed to attach the enquiry report and did not mention the proposed cancellation, violating Order 27(ii) and the principles of natural justice.

Summary

The petitioner, a PDS shop licensee, challenged the cancellation of his license issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer on the ground that the show‑cause notice did not attach the enquiry report nor state the proposed cancellation, violating Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. He contended that this breach of natural justice rendered the cancellation void and sought certiorari to quash the order and mandamus to restore the license. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because a revision before the Commissioner was an alternative remedy. The Court examined prior decisions, notably CWJC No.253 of 2014 and CWJC No.21202 of 2021, which held that omission of the enquiry report and the proposal for cancellation in a show‑cause notice violates procedural fairness. Finding that the show‑cause notice was defective and the cancellation order was unsupported by material, the Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to issue a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice with the enquiry report and afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Issues considered

Whether the show‑cause notice issued under Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, must include the enquiry report and expressly state the proposal for cancellation of the licence.
Whether the failure to comply with the above procedural requirement violates the principles of natural justice and renders the licence cancellation order void.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of a revision remedy before the Commissioner.

Subjects

license cancellation
show-cause notice
natural justice
PDS
Bihar
Rule 27(ii)
mandamus
certiorari

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17257 of 2025
======================================================
Hare Murari Prasad Son of Late Chalittar Roy, Resident of Village-
Kusheshwar Sthan Ujua Simartoka Ward No. 02, P.S. Kusheshwar Sthan,
District - Darbhanga (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the principal Secretary Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, District - Darbhanga.
3. The District Supply Officer, District - Darbhanga.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Biraul, District Darbhanga.
5. The Assistant District Supply Officer, Biraul, District Darbhanga.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Kusheshwarsthan Purbi, District - Darbhanga.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader 11 with
Mr. K. N. Jha, AC to GP 11.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

4 27-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the

following reliefs:-

“This writ application has
been filed for issuance of an appropriate
writ/order/direction for granting
following reliefs to the petitioner;
(i) A Certiorari for quashing
and setting aside the order passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Biraul,
Darbhanga issued vide Memo No. 1889
dated 12.09.2025 whereby and where
under license of the petitioner's P.D.S.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17257 of 2025(4) dt.27-02-2026
2/7

shop bearing license No. 02/2018 has
been cancelled therein Annexure-P/4 on
the basis of some irregularities were
found during the course of inspection in
absence of the petitioner such as PDS
Shop was closed on that day & some
other false, fabricated, self Manufactured
& concocted allegations have been
leveled against the petitioner which is
beyond the fact & truth.
(ii) A mandamus commanding
the licensing Authority to restore the
license of the petitioner PDS Shop
bearing License No. 02/2018 contained
therein Annexure P/1 & consumers of the
petitioner shop as same as before & too
make the allotment for the same before.”
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-
Patna High Court CWJC No.17257 of 2025(4) dt.27-02-2026
3/7

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.

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17257 of 2025(4) dt.27-02-2026
4/7

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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17257 of 2025(4) dt.27-02-2026
5/7

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.”

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17257 of 2025(4) dt.27-02-2026
6/7

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

12.09.2025 in Memo No. 1889 passed by the Sub-Divisional

Officer, Biraul, 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.

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17257 of 2025(4) dt.27-02-2026
7/7

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.

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…