Patna High Court
Upendra ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
A show‑cause notice that omits the enquiry report and fails to state a proposal for cancellation under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016 is invalid, rendering the licence cancellation order void.
Summary
Upendra Chaudhary's licence under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 was cancelled by a Sub‑Divisional Officer through a show‑cause notice that neither attached the enquiry report nor stated a proposal for cancellation. The petitioner contended that this breach of Rule 27(ii) violated natural justice and that the cancellation order should be set aside. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because a revision before the Commissioner was an alternative remedy. Relying on earlier Patna High Court judgments (CWJC No.253/2014 and CWJC No.21202/2021), the Court held that the notice was procedurally defective and the cancellation order could not stand. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to issue a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice with the enquiry report, directing the entire process be completed within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether a show‑cause notice issued under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016 is valid when it does not include the enquiry report and does not mention a proposal for licence cancellation.
- Whether the petitioner is barred from filing a writ petition when a revision before the Commissioner is available as an alternative remedy.
- Whether the cancellation order violates the principles of natural justice and equity.
Subjects
- licence cancellation
- show‑cause notice
- natural justice
- Bihar PDS
- Rule 27(ii)
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17350 of 2025
======================================================
Upendra Chaudhary, son of Kekai Pasi, resident of village and post- Dunhi,
Police Station-Garhpura, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar at Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Begusarai.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bakhari, Dist.- Begusarai.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Garhpura, Dist.- Begusarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Uday Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (16)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 22-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
1. “That this is an application for issuance of
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and
direction/directions to quash the order
dated 11-09-2025 contained in memo No.
1207 passed by the Licensing Authority
cum Sub Divisional Officer, Bakhari
whereby the license No.-23/16 of the
petitioner granted under the Bihar
Targeted P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2016 has
capriciously been cancelled and for
direction upon the respondent No. 3 to
continue allocation to the Public
Patna High Court CWJC No.17350 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
2/6
Distribution System Shop of the petitioner
after declaring the cancellation order null
and void and/or pass such other order(s)
as your Lordships may deem fit and proper
under the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17350 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
3/6
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
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17350 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
4/6
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 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17350 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
5/6
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 11.09.2025
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer (Respondent No. 3)
for issuing a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner strictly in
Patna High Court CWJC No.17350 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
6/6
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 is
allowed to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…