Patna High Court
Jai Ram PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The cancellation order is invalid as it failed to comply with Rule 27(ii) and the principles of natural justice; the order is set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice.
Summary
The petitioner, Jai Ram Prasad, challenged the cancellation of his Public Distribution System (PDS) license by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, who issued a show‑cause notice without attaching the enquiry report and without stating a proposal to cancel the license, allegedly violating natural justice and Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The petitioner argued that the notice was defective and that the appellate authority had dismissed his appeal mechanically, relying on earlier judgments of this Court (CWJC No.253/2014 and CWJC No.21202/2021) which held that such procedural lapses render the cancellation invalid. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because a revision before the Commissioner was an alternative remedy. The Court examined the statutory requirement of furnishing the enquiry report and expressly proposing cancellation in the notice, and found the impugned order to be in breach of those requirements and of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 16‑09‑2025 and remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to issue a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice with the enquiry report and a reasonable time for the petitioner to reply.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of a PDS license without attaching the enquiry report and without expressly proposing cancellation in the show‑cause notice violates Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative remedy of filing a revision before the Commissioner.
Subjects
- natural justice
- license cancellation
- show cause notice
- public distribution system
- Bihar
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18323 of 2025
======================================================
Jai Ram Prasad, Son of Late Karu Prasad, Chairman, Vyapar Mandal,
Sirdalla-cum-Public Distribution Shop Licensee Sirdalla, Resident of Village-
Babninagwan, Sirdalla, Block and Police Station-Sirdalla, District - Nawadah.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food
Supply and Consumer Affairs, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Nawadah.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer cum Licensing Authority, Rajauli, District-
Nawadah.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Sirdalla, District-Nawadah.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arun Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ramadhar Singh, Government Pleader (25)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 27-01-2026 Head learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari setting aside the impugned order
bearing Memo No. 297 dated 16.09.2025 issued
under the signature of Respondent No. 3
whereby without enclosing the enquiry report
alongwith show cause notice the P.D.S. License
of petitioner has been cancelled relying upon
enquiry report in gross violation of Principal of
Natural Justice as also contrary to Division
Bench judgement passed by this Hon'ble Court
as well as different judicial pronouncement of
this Hon'ble Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18323 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
2/6
(ii) For direction upon the Respondent no. 3 to
reinstate the P.D.S. License of the petitioner and
allowed to lift the food grains attached to the
P.D.S. Shop of the petitioner?
(iii) Any other order/orders for granting any
other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is
found entitled to in the facts and circumstances
of the case.”
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.18323 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
3/6
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.18323 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
4/6
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18323 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
5/6
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.
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
16.09.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer
Patna High Court CWJC No.18323 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
6/6
(Respondent No. 3) 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
communicated to the petitioner.
16. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is
allowed to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…