Patna High Court

Devendra Kumar DasversusThe State of Bihar

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

Holding

The order dated 14‑08‑2025 cancelling the petitioner’s PDS licence is set aside and the matter is remanded for a fresh, reasoned order.

Summary

The petitioner, Devendra Kumar Das, challenged the cancellation of his PDS licence (No. 36/2016) by a show‑cause notice and a subsequent order dated 14‑08‑2025 issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, alleging that his detailed explanation was ignored and the order was passed mechanically, violating natural justice. The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the District Magistrate and that the order was well‑reasoned. The Court examined whether the order qualified as a "speaking order" and whether the principles of audi alteram partem and the requirement of a reasoned order were complied with. Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence that administrative actions must be accompanied by reasons, the Court held that the impugned order lacked a reasoned basis and therefore violated the doctrine of natural justice. Consequently, the order cancelling the licence was set aside and the matter remanded to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to pass a fresh, reasoned order after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

Issues considered

The cancellation order of the PDS licence was passed without providing reasons and without considering the petitioner's explanation, violating principles of natural justice.
Whether the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy, rendering the writ petition non‑maintainable.
Whether a quasi‑judicial authority must issue a speaking (reasoned) order under administrative law.

Subjects

PDS licence
natural justice
audi alteram partem
speaking order
reasoned order
administrative law
writ petition
cancellation of licence

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18671 of 2025
======================================================
Devendra Kumar Das Son of Karu Das, Resident of Village- Bihta, P.S-
Mahkar, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and
Civil Supplies, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
4. The District Supply Officer, Gaya.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nimchak, Bathani, Khijarsarai, Gaya.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Khijarsarai, Gaya.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Advocate 5
======================================================
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 filled for the

following reliefs:-

“i. For issuance of appropriate of
writ/s, direction/s, order/s for quashing order
dated 14.08.2025 contained in Memo No. 1830
dated 14.08.2025 passed by Respondent No. 4
whereby and under he was pleased to cancel
the PDS License of the petitioner bearing No.
36 of 2016 with immediate effect.
ii. For issuance of appropriate of
writ/s, direction/s, order/s for quashing show
cause notice issued to the petitioner vide Letter
No. 1455 dated 07.07.2025 whereby and under
Second Show Cause Notice has been issued to
the petitioner for submitting his reply within a
fornight that why not PDS License of the
petitioner be cancelled.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18671 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
2/6

iii. For issuance of appropriate fo
writ/s direction/s, order/s to the respondents to
restore the PDS License of the petitioner
bearing No. 36/2016 after quashing the order
dated 14.08.2025 and thereafter allow the
petitioner to operate and run his PDS Shop
within any hindrance.
iv. To pass any order or orders as
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 impugned order dated 14.08.2025

in Memo No. 1830 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Nimchak, Bathani, Khijarsarai, Gaya i.e. Respondent No. 5 is

liable to be set aside as the same is against the principles of

natural justice and equity. Learned counsel has stated that

though the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation to the

show cause notice, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not

considered the said explanation and passed the orders in a

mechanical manner. That the explanation submitted by the

petitioner has not been adverted to by the Sub-Divisional

Officer in his order. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this

Court to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter

back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for passing orders afresh

duly taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the

petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
Patna High Court CWJC No.18671 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
3/6

has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present

Writ Petition and stated that the petitioner has an alternative and

efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the District

Magistrate. Learned counsel has stated that the orders passed by

the Sub-Divisional Officer is a well reasoned order and does not

require any interference of this Court and prayed to dismiss the

present Writ Petition.

5. A perusal of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional

Officer shows that the Sub-Divisional Officer while passing the

orders has not adverted to the explanation submitted by the

petitioner. Even though the petitioner has given a detailed

explanation to the show cause notice, the Sub-Divisional Officer

has not discussed the explanation submitted by the petitioner

and passed the orders in a mechanical manner. This Court in a

catena of cases, has held that any order that is passed has to

contain the reasons for passing the said orders. Unless and until

the reasons are given in the impugned order, the superior

authority or the Court will not be in a position to appreciate the

order passed and the reason for the order being passed. In

absence of any reasons in the order, it would be very difficult to

either sustain or set aside the said order. Any order which is not

speaking order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18671 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
4/6

same has to be necessarily set aside.

6. This Court as well as the Apex Court, on number of

occasions. have held that any authority Court/quasi judicial

authority have to necessarily give reasoning in the order passed

by them. Unless reasoning is given in the order, neither the party

nor Courts before whom the order is challenged will be in a

position to appreciate as to what has weighed with the said

authority either for dismissing or allowing the application of the

petitioner. Though the quasi judicial or administrative authority

are not obligated to give a lengthy or elaborate reasoning as in

the case of Judicial order, yet they are expected to give a

reasoned order which should be precise, concisely setting out

the reason for allowing or dismissing the

contention/application/case.

7. In the case of Assistant Commissioner,

Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing,

Kota vs. Shukla and Brothers, reported in (2010) 4 SCC, 785,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“……………… while exercising the power
of judicial review on administrative action and more
particularly the judgment of courts in appeal before
the higher court, providing of reasons can never be
dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem
has three basic essentials. Firstly: a person against
whom an order is required to be passed or whose
rights are likely to be affected adversely must be
granted an opportunity of being heard Secondly, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18671 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
5/6

authority concerned should provide a fair and
transparent procedure and lastly, the authority
concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the
matter by a reasoned or speaking order........”
“........A litigant who approaches the
court with any grievance in accordance with law is
entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of
his prayer Reasons are the soul of orders Non-
recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities:
Firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party
and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper
administration of justice. These principles are not
only applicable to administrative or executive
actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact,
with a greater degree of precision to judicial
pronouncements. The orders of the court must reflect
what weighed with the court in granting or declining
the relief claimed by the applicant."

8. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and

circumstances, the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 passed by

the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nimchak, Bathani, Khijarsarai,

Gaya (i.e. Respondent No. 5 herein) is set aside and the matter

is remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for passing

orders afresh. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall pass a reasoned

order duly taking into account the various contentions raised by

the petitioner in his explanation.

9. It is needless to mention that before passing any

order the petitioner shall be put on notice and 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 the copy of this order. Any
Patna High Court CWJC No.18671 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
6/6

order passed shall be communicated to the party.

10. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands

allowed to the extent indicated.

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…