Patna High Court

Manoranjan SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 22 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The cancellation order is set aside as the show‑cause notice was defective, and the matter is remanded for a fresh notice complying with Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Summary

Manoranjan Singh, a PDS shop licensee, challenged the cancellation of his license by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, which was based on alleged incorrect quantity entries in his EPOS machine. The show‑cause notice issued did not attach the enquiry report nor mention a proposal for cancellation, 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 writ petition was not maintainable because a revision before the Commissioner was an alternative remedy. The High Court held that the notice was defective, set aside the cancellation order, and remanded the matter for issuance of a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice with the enquiry report, directing the authority to afford a hearing and pass a reasoned order.

Issues considered

The validity of a show‑cause notice under Order 27(ii) of the BTPDS Control Order when it omits the enquiry report and a proposal for cancellation.
Whether the omission violates principles of natural justice and renders the cancellation order void.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative revision remedy.

Subjects

license cancellation
show-cause notice
natural justice
Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
Rule 27(ii)
certiorari
mandamus
writ petition
administrative law

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17404 of 2025
======================================================
Manoranjan Singh, Son of Prem Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Atapur,
Pach Kutti, Ward No.- 11, P.S.- Hasanpur, District- Samastipur.

... ... 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- Samastipur.
3. The District Supply Officer, District- Samastipur.
4. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Rosera, District- Samastipur.
5. The Assistant District Supply Officer, Rosera, District- Samastipur.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Hasanpur, District- Samastipur.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Gaurav, 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):-

“A. Certiorari for quashing & setting aside the
order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer,
Rosera issued by vide Memo No.812 dated
12.09.2025 whereby and where under the
license of the petitioner P.D.S shop bearing
License No. 11/2021 has been cancelled
contained therein Annexure -P/5 on the basis of
wrongly & access quantity of food grains
uploaded in the Petitioner's Epos Machine
No.122100300777 for which neither any S.I.0
Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
2/7

has been issued nor the petitioner has received
the said grains in question.
B. A mandamus commanding the licensing
Authority to restore the license of the petitioner
P.D.S shop bearing License No. 11/2021
contained therein Annexure -P/1 & consumers
of the petitioner shop as same as before & too
make the allotment for the same as before.
C. A mandamus commanding the licensing
Authority up to date his Epos machine as per
stock received by the petitioner and distribute
the same amongst the beneficiaries.
D. Any other relief or reliefs for which the be
found entitled in the fact petitioner may and
circumstances of the present case may be
granted to him.”

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’)
Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
3/7

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

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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
4/7

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.

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
5/7

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."

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
6/7

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 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is 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.

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
7/7

communicated to the petitioner.

16. 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…