Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Janak @ Janak ChaudhariversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

A licence cancellation effected without a show‑cause notice that specifies the proposed cancellation and includes the enquiry report violates Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice, and therefore the cancellation order must be set aside.

Summary

The petitioner, Janak Chaudhari, challenged the cancellation of his PDS licence (No.132/2007) by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, who issued a show‑cause notice without attaching the enquiry report and without stating a proposal for cancellation, contrary to Rule 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. 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 specify the proposed cancellation and include the enquiry report. Consequently, the Court set aside the cancellation order dated 27‑09‑2025 and remanded the matter for issuance of a fresh, compliant notice. The writ petition was allowed.

Issues considered

  • Did the show‑cause notice issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer comply with Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 requiring mention of a proposed licence cancellation and attachment of the enquiry report?
  • Does the failure to provide the enquiry report and to state the proposed cancellation violate the principles of natural justice, warranting quashing of the licence cancellation order?
  • Is the writ petition maintainable notwithstanding the availability of a revision remedy before the Commissioner?

Subjects

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

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17945 of 2025
                 ======================================================
                 Janak @ Janak Chaudhari S/o Lalman Yadav, Resident of Village- Ranipur,
                 Panchayat- Sadarpur, P.S.- Barhariya, District- Siwan.

                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                 Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection
                 Department, Bihar, Patna.
           2.    The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Siwan.
           3.    The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Siwan-cum-Licensing Authority, Siwan.
           4.    The Block Supply Officer, Barhariya, District- Siwan.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :      Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
                 For the Respondent/s    :      Mr. Standing Counsel (7)
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
                                    ORAL ORDER

2   19-01-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the

                   following reliefs:-

                                                        “…..for        issuance       of
                                              appropriate writ/writs order/orders,
                                              direction/directions in the nature of
                                              certiorari for quashing the order
                                              contained in Memo No. 697/Aa dated
                                              27.09.2025 (Annexure P/3) passed by the
                                              SDO Sadar Siwan cum-Licensing
                                              Authority by which he was pleased to
                                              cancel the PDS license of the petitioner
                                              being License No. 132/2007 on the basis
                                              of notice where there is no stipulation of
                                              proposed punishment and that too
                                              without supplying the inspection report
                                              and further be pleased to restore the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17945 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
                                           2/6




                                      license and supply of 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

          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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17945 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
                                           3/6




          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.

                      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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17945 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
                                           4/6




                                      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. Unfortunately it is grossly
                                      missing inasmuch as neither the order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.17945 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
                                           5/6




                                      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 (Annexure P/3) in Memo No. 697 passed by the

          Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar Siwan-cum-Licensing Authority

          is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-Divisional

          Officer for issuing a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner
           Patna High Court CWJC No.17945 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
                                                      6/6




                     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 stands

                     allowed to the extent indicated.



                                                         (A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-

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.