Patna High Court

Dinesh PaswanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 27 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The cancellation order is void because the show‑cause notice failed to comply with Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, thereby violating natural justice.

Summary

The petitioner, a PDS shop licensee, challenged the cancellation of his license by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, who issued a show‑cause notice without attaching the enquiry report and without stating a proposal for cancellation. The petitioner argued that this violated Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because a revision before the Commissioner was an alternative remedy. The Court examined prior judgments (CWJC No.253/2014 and CWJC No.21202/2021) which held that a valid notice must mention the proposed cancellation and include the enquiry report. Finding that the notice was defective and the cancellation order was therefore ultra vires, the Court set aside the order. The matter was remanded to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to issue a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice and to provide the enquiry report. The writ petition was allowed in part.

Issues considered

Whether the cancellation order of the PDS shop license is valid in view of the procedural requirements of Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
Whether the petitioner was denied the principles of natural justice by not being furnished the enquiry report and a clear proposal for cancellation.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of a revision remedy before the Commissioner.

Subjects

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

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18152 of 2025
======================================================
Dinesh Paswan, Son of Chini Paswan, Resident of village- Ward no. 15,
Karor Khanjahanpur, P.S.- Cheriya Bariyarpur, District- Begusarai (Bihar).

... ... 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- Begusarai.
3. The District Supply Officer, District- Begusarai.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Manjhaul, District- Begusarai.
5. The Assistant District Supply Officer, Manjhaul, District- Begusarai.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Cheriya Bariyarpur, District- Begusarai.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate.
Mr. Gaurav Labh, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (12) with
Mr. Kamlesh Kishore, AC to SC 12.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

2 27-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the

following reliefs:-

“(i) ………..for issuance of an
appropriate writ, order and directions in
the nature of Certiorari for quashing &
setting aside the order passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Manjhaul issued by
vide Memo No. 1191 dated 08.09.2025
whereby and whereunder the license of
the petitioner PDS shop bearing License
No. CHBR-26/2016 has been cancelled
contained therein Annexure-P/4 on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18152 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
2/7

contrary of the provisions only on the
basis of some general, ominous, false,
fabricated & self manufactured
allegations have levelled against the
petitioner prejudicially & purely with
mala fide intention which is beyond the
truth & fact of this matter.
(ii) A mandamus commanding
the licensing Authority to restore the
license of the petitioner PDS shop
bearing license No. CHBR-26/2016
contained therein Annexure-P/1 &
consumers of the petitioner shop as same
as before & too make the allotment for
the same as before.”

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-
Patna High Court CWJC No.18152 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
3/7

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.

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18152 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
4/7

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 prejudiced
Patna High Court CWJC No.18152 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
5/7

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18152 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
6/7

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

08.09.2025 in Memo No. 1191 passed by the Sub-Divisional

Officer, Manjhaul, Begusarai 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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18152 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
7/7

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/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…