Patna High Court
Dharmnath SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
A show‑cause notice that does not state the proposed cancellation of the license is invalid under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and the cancellation order must be set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Dharmnath Sahni, challenged the cancellation of his PDS license by the Sub‑Divisional Officer (SDO) Muzaffarpur, which was based on a show‑cause notice that failed to state a proposal for cancellation. He argued that this omission violated Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, rendering the notice invalid. The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable as all remedies had been exhausted. Relying on the full‑bench judgment in CWJC No.21202 of 2021, the Court held that a notice under Rule 27(ii) must expressly mention the proposed cancellation; otherwise it is not a valid notice. Consequently, the Court set aside the SDO’s order and remanded the matter for issuance of a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice, directing the authority to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to decide within eight weeks. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a show‑cause notice issued under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 is valid when it does not mention a proposal for cancellation of the license.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the alleged exhaustion of administrative remedies.
- Whether the cancellation order can be set aside on the ground of procedural defect in the notice.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 — s. Rule 27(ii)
Subjects
- show cause notice
- license cancellation
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
- Rule 27(ii)
- writ petition
- certiorari
- procedural fairness
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17929 of 2025
======================================================
Dharmnath Sahni S/o Jogendra Sahni, Resident of Village-Maheshpur, Tepari,
P.S.-Hatha, District-Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Muzaffarpur.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer East cum Licensing Authority, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Bandra, District-Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate (03)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 27-01-2026 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for seeking the
following relief(s):-
“That the present writ application is
being filed on behalf of the petitioner for
issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions in the nature of certiorari
for quashing the order contained in Memo No.
1253/Aa dated 26.09.2025 (Annexure-P/3)
passed by the S.D.O East Muzaffarpur cum-
Licensing Authority by which he was pleased to
Patna High Court CWJC No.17929 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
2/5
cancel the PDS license of the petitioner being
License No. 23-03-08-05/2016 on the basis of
notice where there is no stipulation of proposed
punishment and that too without considering the
reply filed by the petitioner and further be
pleased to restore the license and supply of the
petitioner.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has stated that in the Show Cause Notice issued by the
Sub-Divisional Officer there is no proposal for cancellation of
the license. 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’).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of the full Bench 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.
5. Learned counsel has stated in view of the above
mentioned provisions of law and judgment relied by the
petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and matter
Patna High Court CWJC No.17929 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
3/5
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 thereafter take necessary action.
6. 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 exhausted
all the remedies and all the authorities have found that the
petitioner has violated the provisions of the Control Order,
2016. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court
to dismiss the present writ petition.
7. 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. ”
8. A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the
petitioner does not reveal that there is any proposal of the action
sought to be taken against the petitioner. Therefore, the same
Patna High Court CWJC No.17929 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
4/5
has to held as bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Rule
27(ii) of the Control Order and has to necessarily set aside.
9. 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 passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer dated 26.09.2025 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 call for
his explanation by giving him reasonable time.
10. 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 order strictly in
accordance with law duly taking into consideration the
explanation submitted by the petitioner.
11. 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17929 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
5/5
12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is
allowed to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Gauravkr/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.