Patna High Court
Nutan KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The Court held that the show‑cause notices were procedurally defective and therefore the orders of suspension and cancellation of the PDS licence were set aside, with the matter remanded for a fresh notice in compliance with Rule 27(ii).
Summary
The petitioner, Nutan Kumari, challenged the suspension and cancellation of her PDS licence on the ground that the show‑cause notices issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer did not attach the enquiry report nor mention a proposal for cancellation, violating Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The High Court examined whether the procedural requirements of natural justice were complied with and whether the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing a revision. Relying on its earlier judgments, the Court held that the notices were invalid for lacking the required annexures and clear proposal, and that the appellate authority had acted mechanically. Consequently, the orders dated 28‑02‑2025, 09‑11‑2022 and 08‑02‑2023 were set aside and the matter remanded for issuance of a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice. The petition was allowed in part, directing the authorities to follow the procedural safeguards and afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Issues considered
- Whether the show‑cause notice issued under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 complied with the mandatory requirement of attaching the enquiry report and stating a proposal for cancellation under Rule 27(ii).
- Whether the petitioner is barred from filing the writ petition because a revision before the Commissioner is an alternative and efficacious remedy.
- Whether the appellate authority’s dismissal of the appeal was a mechanical exercise violating principles of natural justice.
Subjects
- PDS licence
- show‑cause notice
- natural justice
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
- cancellation of licence
- certiorari
- administrative law
- revision remedy
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18328 of 2025
======================================================
Nutan Kumari, Wife of Shiv Shankar Suman @ Guddu Sharma, Resident of
Gopalpur Tola, Balia Basa, Ward No.- 6, P.S.- Udakishunganj, District-
Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Madhepura.
3. The District Supply Officer, Madhepura.
4. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Udakishunganj, Madhepura.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Udakishunganj, Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shrish Anurag, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Addl. Advocate General 04
======================================================
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 writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the order dated 28-
02-2025 passed by the District Magistrate,
Madhepura in PDS License Appeal Case No.
05/2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the
petitioner against the order of suspension and
subsequent cancellation of the PDS License No.
77/2018 of the petitioner has been rejected.
(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the order contained in
Patna High Court CWJC No.18328 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
2/7
memo no. 616 dated 08-02-2023 issued by the
Subdivisional Officer, Udakishunganj whereby
the PDS license No. 77/2018 of the petitioner
has been cancelled.
(iii) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of memo no. 3847 dated
09-11-2022 issued by the Subdivisional Officer,
Udakishunganj whereby the PDS License No.
77/2018 of the petitioner has been suspended.
(iv) For necessary direction upon the
respondent authorities to restore the PDS
license No. 77/2018 of the petitioner, as the
allegation against the petitioner is relating to
missing foodgrains in 1373 bags, which the
petitioner is ready to return to the authority and
despite such offer being made by the petitioner
before the District Magistrate, the appeal of the
petitioner has been rejected.
(v) For any other direction, which your
Lordships may deem fit and proper 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18328 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
3/7
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18328 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
4/7
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18328 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
5/7
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18328 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
6/7
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
28.02.2025 passed by the appellate authority and the orders
dated 09.11.2022 and 08.02.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-
divisional Officer (Respondent No. 4) 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18328 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
7/7
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…