Patna High Court
Shyam Bihari RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The show‑cause notice was invalid for not complying with Order 27(ii), and consequently the licence cancellation order was set aside.
Summary
Shyam Bihari Ram challenged the cancellation of his fair‑price shop licence issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. He argued that the show‑cause notice did not attach the enquiry report nor state a proposal for cancellation, violating Order 27(ii) and the principles of natural justice. The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable because a revision before the Commissioner was an alternative remedy. The High Court examined prior judgments (CWJC No.253/2014 and CWJC No.21202/2021) which held that omission of the enquiry report and proposal renders a notice invalid. The Court held that the SDO’s notice was defective, set aside the cancellation order, and remanded the matter for issuance of a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice. The petition was allowed with directions for the authority to follow the procedural requirements within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Did the show‑cause notice issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer comply with Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 requiring inclusion of the enquiry report and a proposal for licence cancellation?
- Was the cancellation of the petitioner’s PDS dealership licence violative of the principles of natural justice?
- Is the writ petition maintainable, or does the petitioner have an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing a revision before the Commissioner?
Subjects
- license cancellation
- fair price shop
- public distribution system
- natural justice
- show‑cause notice
- Bihar
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18256 of 2025
======================================================
Shyam Bihari Ram S/o Nandkeshwar Ram, resident of Village- Tiara Khurd,
P.S. Chutiya, District-rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and
Consumer Protection, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dihri, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.
4. The District Supply Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Nauhatta Block, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. U.S.S. Singh, GP 19.
======================================================
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) To issue an appropriate
order/s, direction/s including a writ
preferably in the nature of Certiorari for
quash the order as contained in Memo
No. 148, dated 22.02.2025 issued by the
learned SDO, Dihri, District-Rohtas at
Sasaram (Hereinafter referred to as
Licensing Authority under the Bihar
Targeted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016) whereby and
whereunder he has cancel the fair price
shop license of the petitioner for
committing illegality and irregularity in
Patna High Court CWJC No.18256 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
2/7
distribution of food grains amongst to the
consumers and directed to Block Supply
Officer, Nauhatta, Rohtas to tagged the
consumers of petitioner with the nearest
fair price shop dealer.
(ii) To direct the respondent
NO. 3, the SDO, Dihri, Rohtas to restore
the PDS dealership license of the
petitioner henceforth with taking into the
consideration that the same is only
means of earning livelihood.”
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18256 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
3/7
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18256 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
4/7
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18256 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
5/7
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 proposal of the action sought to be taken
against the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18256 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
6/7
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
22.02.2025 in Memo No. 148 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Dihri, Rohtas at Sasaram 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 possible preferably within a period of eight
Patna High Court CWJC No.18256 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
7/7
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
Checking your session…