Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Arshad AliversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

A show‑cause notice that fails to attach the enquiry report and does not state a proposal for licence cancellation is invalid under Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Summary

Arshad Ali filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his PDS licence and a show‑cause notice issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, alleging that the notice neither attached the enquiry report nor mentioned a proposal to cancel the licence, contrary to Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The petitioner argued that this breach violated natural justice and that the appellate authority had dismissed his appeal mechanically. The respondents contended that the 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 a valid show‑cause notice must include the enquiry report and state the proposed cancellation. Consequently, the Court set aside the cancellation order, remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to issue a fresh notice complying with Rule 27(ii) and to provide the enquiry report, and directed that the petitioner be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The writ petition was allowed in part.

Issues considered

  • Whether the show‑cause notice issued to the licence holder complied with the procedural requirements of Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
  • Whether the non‑attachment of the enquiry report and the omission of a proposal for cancellation violated the principles of natural justice.
  • Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of a revision remedy before the Commissioner.

Subjects

  • natural justice
  • show‑cause notice
  • licence cancellation
  • PDS
  • Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
  • procedural fairness
  • writ petition
  • administrative law

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17394 of 2025
                 ======================================================
                 Arshad Ali, Son of Shamshuddin Khan, Resident of Ward no. 20, PS.-
                 Vikramganj, District Rohtas, 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, Rohtas.
           4.    The Additional District Magistrate, Rohtas.
           5.    The Sub Divisional Officer, Bikramganj, Rohtas.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s       :      Mr.Adya Pandey, Adv.
                                                   Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Mishra, Sr. Adv.
                 For the Respondent/s       :      Mr.Addl. Advocate General 04
                 ======================================================
                 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):-

                                        “i. For quashing the order contained in memo
                                         no. 814 dated 27.09.2025 issued under the
                                         signature of Respondent Sub-Divisional Officer
                                         whereby and whereunder PDS Licence no. 35 of
                                         2007 of the petitioner was cancelled.
                                         ii. For quashing the letter contained in memo
                                         no. 548 dated 01.09.2025 by which show cause
                                         was issued to the petitioner in gross violation of
                                         natural justice since the enquiry report was not
                                         served to the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17394 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
                                            2/6




                             iii. For restoring the PDS license no. 35 of 2007
                            of the petitioner.
                             iv. Any other order(s) as Your Lordships may
                            deem      fit   and proper    in the   facts   and
                            circumstances of the case be granted to 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17394 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.17394 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.17394 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 dated

          27.09.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is set aside.

          The matter is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer

          (Respondent No. 5) for issuing a fresh show-cause notice to the
             Patna High Court CWJC No.17394 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
                                                        6/6




                       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.

                                   16. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is

                       allowed to the extent indicated above.



                                                  (A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.