Patna High Court
Shivnath Prasad Rajak @ Shiv Nath Rajak @ Shiv Nath BalthaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The court held that the show‑cause notice was invalid for failing to mention the proposal for cancellation and for not attaching the enquiry report, thereby violating natural justice and Order 27(ii), and consequently set aside the cancellation orders.
Summary
Shivnath Prasad Rajak, a Fair Price shop licensee, challenged the cancellation of his license issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer on 19‑May‑2022. He appealed the cancellation, but the appeal was dismissed by the District Magistrate and the subsequent revision was rejected by the Commissioner. The petitioner contended that the show‑cause notice was defective because it neither mentioned a proposal for cancellation nor attached the enquiry report, violating Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as a revision remedy was available. The High Court held that the procedural defects rendered the cancellation orders illegal and set them aside, directing the Sub‑Divisional Officer to issue a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice with the enquiry report. The matter was remanded for fresh proceedings within a stipulated time frame.
Issues considered
- Whether the show‑cause notice issued under Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 is valid without a stated proposal for cancellation and without attaching the enquiry report.
- Whether the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing a revision, rendering the writ petition non‑maintainable.
Subjects
- license cancellation
- fair price shop
- show‑cause notice
- natural justice
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
- Rule 27(ii)
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19365 of 2025
======================================================
Shivnath Prasad Rajak @ Shiv Nath Rajak @ Shiv Nath Baitha Son of Ram
Prasad Baitha, Resident of Muhalla - Salempur, P.S. - Town, District - Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra.
3. The District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chapra, District-Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Standing Counsel (12)
: Mr. Pramod Kumar Yadav, AC to SC12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
3 02-02-2026 Head learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“A. Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chapra
vide Memo No. 833 dated 19/5/2022 whereby and
whereunder license of the petitioner's Fair Price shop
bearing No. 97/2016 has been cancelled with
immediate effect contained in Annexure - P/1 and
quashing and setting aside the order dated 13/2/2023
passed by the learned District Magistrate, Saran,
Chapra in Supply Appeal Case No. 20/2022 contained
in Annexure - P/4 whereby and whereunder appeal filed
by the petitioner against the cancellation order has
been rejected and quashing and setting aside the order
dated 2/4/2025 passed by the learned Commissioner,
Saran Division, Chapra in Supply Revision Case No.
144/2023 contained in Annexure - P/5 whereby and
whereunder revision filed by the petitioner against the
appellate order has been rejected.
B. A mandamus commanding the Respondents to
restore the petitioner's license as before and to make
Patna High Court CWJC No.19365 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
2/6
allotment for the petitioner's shop.
C. Any other relief or reliefs for which petitioner may
be found entitled in the fact and circumstances of the
present case may be granted to him.”
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.19365 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
3/6
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.19365 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
4/6
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.19365 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
5/6
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
02.04.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Saran
Division, Chapra, order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the
appellate authority and the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chapra 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.19365 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
6/6
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)
Ayush/-
U
Checking your session…