Patna High Court
Munni DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The cancellation order is set aside and the matter is remanded for furnishing the enquiry report and granting the petitioner a hearing.
Summary
The petitioner, Munni Devi, challenged the cancellation of her PDS licence (No. 49/2016) on the ground that the licensing authority issued a show‑cause notice without attaching the enquiry report and without giving her an opportunity to respond. She argued that this breach of natural justice rendered the cancellation order illegal. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because an appeal before the District Magistrate was an alternative remedy. The Court examined the earlier decision of this Court in CWJC No.253 of 2014, which held that non‑supply of the enquiry report and lack of a hearing violate principles of natural justice. Relying on that precedent, the Court set aside the order dated 11‑09‑2025 and remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to furnish the enquiry report and allow the petitioner to file an explanation. The Court directed that a reasoned order be passed within eight weeks after the petitioner’s reply.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of the PDS licence without serving the enquiry report and without hearing the petitioner violates the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal before the District Magistrate.
Subjects
- natural justice
- license cancellation
- PDS dealer
- show‑cause notice
- procedural fairness
- mandamus
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18926 of 2025
======================================================
Munni Devi, Wife of Bindu Sahu, resident of village and Post- Nehra, Post
Office Road, Near Model Public School, Lehara, P.S.- Manigachhi, Disrict-
Darbhanga, Pin Code- 847233.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector, Darbhanga.
4. The District Supply Officer, Darbhanga.
5. The Licensing Authority cum Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Manigachhi, Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kaushalesh Choudhary, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Addl. Advocate General 04
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“i. For issuance of appropriate
writ(s)/Rule(s)/Direction(s) in the nature of
mandamus, commanding the concerned
respondents, for quashing the Order dated
09.09.2025, passed by the Licensing Officer-
cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga,
issued vide Memo No.717 dated 11.09.2025, by
which the Petitioner's P.D.S. License No.
49/2016, issued for Gram Panchayat Raj, Nehra
Patna High Court CWJC No.18926 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/5
East, Manigachhi, Darbhanga has been
cancelled only on the basis of recommendation
of the Block Supply Officer, Manigachhi vide his
inquiry report submitted by letter no.122 dated
04.09.2025, without serving the aforesaid
inquiry report to the petitioner and even without
considering the petitioner's reply dated
11.09.2025.
ii. For restoration of Petitioner's License
No.49/2016 with all facilities, available to the
PDS dealer.
Iii. For grant of all other relief/reliefs to which
the petitioner may found entitled, on 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.
4. 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.
5. Learned counsel has stated that in view of the
above mentioned provisions of law and judgment relied by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18926 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/5
petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and matter
remanded back to the authorities concerned for furnishing a
copy of the enquiry report and any other material that they seek
to rely on and give an opportunity of filing his explanation and
thereafter take necessary action.
6. 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 an appeal before the
District Magistrate. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this
Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
7. 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18926 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/5
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
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."
8. 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.
9. 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 11.09.2025 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer is set aside. The matter is remanded back
Patna High Court CWJC No.18926 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
5/5
to the Sub-divisional Officer (Respondent No. 5) for furnishing
a copy of the enquiry report and any other material relied on the
petitioner and call for his explanation by giving reasonable time.
10. 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 order strictly in
accordance with law duly taking into consideration the
explanation submitted by the petitioner.
11. It is needless to mention that before passing any
order, 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.
12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is
allowed to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…