Patna High Court
Jagadeesh Paswan @ Jagdish PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The cancellation order is set aside and the petitioner’s PDS licence is to be restored.
Summary
Jagadeesh Paswan, a Scheduled Caste dealer of a Fair Price Shop under the Public Distribution System, was inspected and served two show‑cause notices alleging misconduct. He replied to both notices, but the Sub‑Divisional Officer cancelled his licence on 13‑09‑2022, adding a fresh ground without giving him an opportunity to be heard and without recording any reasons. The petitioner contended that the order violated principles of natural justice and the requirement of a reasoned decision, and cited a 1994 Government of Bihar memo that discouraged cancellation of licences belonging to SC/ST dealers. The State argued that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal before the District Magistrate and that the order was well‑reasoned. The Court, relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence that quasi‑judicial decisions must be reasoned, held that the cancellation was invalid, set aside the impugned order and directed restoration of the licence, while warning that future irregularities could be dealt with according to law.
Issues considered
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer's cancellation order, which added a new ground without hearing, violates the principles of natural justice and the requirement of a reasoned order.
- Whether the petitioner is required to first avail the statutory appeal before the District Magistrate, affecting the maintainability of the writ petition.
- Whether the 1994 Government of Bihar memo prohibiting cancellation of licences of SC/ST dealers is applicable to the present case.
Subjects
- Public Distribution System
- Fair Price Shop
- Natural Justice
- Reasoned Order
- Administrative Law
- SC/ST Reservation
- Writ Petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20542 of 2025
======================================================
Jagadeesh Paswan @ Jagdish Paswan S/o Madhur Paswan, Resident of Ward
No. 11, Khabdah, P.O.-Kannali, P.S.-Narpatganj, District-Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Araria.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Forbesganj, District-Araria.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Narpatganj, District-Araria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Anuradha Singh, SC 21.
======================================================
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 filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) ..….for quashing the order
dated 13.09.2022 issued and passed by
the Sub-divisional Officer, Forbesganj,
whereby and whereunder the learned
Sub-Divisional Officer Forbesganj has
cancelled the Fair Price Shop of the
petitioner under Public Distribution
System bearing License No. 74N/2016,
without considering the sow-cause reply
of the petitioner by a cryptic,
unreasoned, unexplained order.
(ii) Further for direction to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20542 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
2/8
respondents to restore the license and
supply to the Fair Price Shop of the
petitioner under Public Distribution
System bearing License No. 74N/2016.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is a PDS dealer belonging
to the Scheduled Caste. That the authority has inspected the
shop of the petitioner on 08.03.2022 and, thereafter, the SDO
has issued the show-cause notice dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure
P/1). As per the show-cause notice three allegations were made
against the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his
explanation on 26.05.2022 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, the
authority did not take any action for a period of almost three
months and issued another show-cause notice dated 27.07.2022
(Annexure P/3) adding two more grounds to the earlier ones.
The petitioner has given his reply to the 2 nd show-cause notice
on 01.09.2022 (Anneuxre P/4), thereafter, the authority has
passed the impugend order dated 13.09.2022. Learned counsel
submits that the authority while passing the impugned order has
added one more ground for cancelling the PDS dealership of the
petitioner without giving him an opportunity of filing of his
explanation to the newly added allegations. Further, learned
counsel has submitted that the authority has not taken into
consideration the letter dated 26.11.1994 issued by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20542 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
3/8
Government of Bihar (Annexure P/7) where the Government of
Bihar has taken a decision not to cancel the license of the PDS
dealership belongs to the SC/ST Category. Learned counsel
submits that the even on merits, the authority has not taken the
replies filed by the petitioner into consideration and has simply
stated that the explanation filed by the petitioner is not
satisfactory. Learned counsel, therefore, prays this Hon’ble
Court to set aside the impugned order dated 13.09.2022 and
restore the PDS license of the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Respondent-State has vehemently opposed the very
maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel has
stated that the petitioner is having a statutory remedy of filing
an appeal against the impugned order of cancellation before the
District Magistrate and the petitioner may be directed to avail
the same. Further, the learned counsel has stated that the
authority duly taking into account the serious allegations made
against the petitioner has taken a decision to cancel the PDS
license of the petitioner and the said order is well reasoned order
which does not require any interference by the this Hon’ble
Court. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed this Hon’ble
Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20542 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
4/8
5. Admittedly as seen from the record, the shop of the
petitioner was inspected on 08.03.2022 and a show-cause notice
was issued to the petitioner making three allegations. Thereafter,
another show-cause notice is issued to the petitioner where two
more allegations have been added. The petitioner has given
suitable replies to both the said show-cause notices, however, it
is to be noted that the authority while passing the order has
added one more ground. In the counter affidavit filed by the
Respondent-State, the same has not been denied. As seen from
the I.O., the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to
rebut the fresh allegation made against the petitioner. Further,
the authority while passing the impugned order of cancellation
has stated that the replies filed by the petitioner are not
satisfactory. The authority has not passed a reasoned order
giving the reasons either for accepting or rejecting the
explanations submitted by the petitioner. This Court as well as
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has
depreciated the practice of the quasi-judicial officers or judicial
officers not giving the reasons while passing the order and not
taking into consideration explanation submitted.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti
Associates Private Ltd. and Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan
Patna High Court CWJC No.20542 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
5/8
and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, Para-47 has held as
under:-
“47. Summarizing the above
discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend
has always been to record reasons, even
in administrative decisions, if such
decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority
must record reasons in support of its
conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of
reasons is meant to serve the wider
principle of justice that justice must not
only be done it must also appear to be
done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also
operates as a valid restraint on any
possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and
quasi-judicial or even administrative
power.
(e) Reasons reassure that
discretion has been exercised by the
decision-maker on relevant grounds and
by disregarding extraneous
considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually
become as indispensable a component of
a decision-making process as observing
principles of natural justice by judicial,
quasi-judicial and even by administrative
bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the
process of judicial review by superior
courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend
in all countries committed to rule of law
Patna High Court CWJC No.20542 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
6/8
and constitutional governance is in
favour of reasoned decisions based on
relevant facts. This is virtually the
lifeblood of judicial decision-making
justifying the principle that reason is the
soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-
judicial opinions these days can be as
different as the judges and authorities
who deliver them. All these decisions
serve one common purpose which is to
demonstrate by reason that the relevant
factors have been objectively considered.
This is important for sustaining the
litigants’ faith in the justice delivery
system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a
requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-
judicial authority is not candid enough
about his/her decision-making process
then it is impossible to know whether the
person deciding is faithful to the doctrine
of precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of
decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretense of reasons or
“rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be
equated with a valid decision-making
process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that
transparency is the sine qua non of
restraint on abuse of judicial powers.
Transparency in decision-making not only
makes the judges and decision-makers
less prone to errors but also makes them
subject to broader scrutiny. (See David
Patna High Court CWJC No.20542 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
7/8
Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor
[(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-
37] .)
(n) Since the requirement to
record reasons emanates from the broad
doctrine of fairness in decision making,
the said requirement is now virtually a
component of human rights and was
considered part of Strasbourg
Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain
[(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562
para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford
[2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the
Court referred to Article 6 of the
European Convention of Human Rights
which requires, “adequate and intelligent
reasons must be given for judicial
decisions”.
(o) In all common law
jurisdictions judgments play a vital role
in setting up precedents for the future.
Therefore, for development of law,
requirement of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is virtually
a part of “due process.”
7. Further, it is to be noted that the Government of
Bihar has issued a memo dated 26.11.1994 (Annexure P/7)
which reads as under:-
**funs”kkuqlkj mijksDr ftysokj
fopkjksijkUr ljdkj }kjk ;g fu.kZ; gS fd
vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa tu tkfr ds tu forj.k
iz.kkyh foØsrkvksa dks ykbZlsal jn~n fdlh Hkh
ifjfLFkfr esa ugha dh tk; cfYd muds xyfr;ksa dks
fujLr dj fn”kk funsZ”k nsaA**
8. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, this Court has no other option but to allow the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20542 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
8/8
CWJC and set aside the impugned order dated 13.09.2022
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Forbesganj and the same
is accordingly set aside and the authority is directed to restore
the PDS license of the petitioner. The petitioner is hereby
warned that, in case, any irregularites are found in the running
of the PDS shop or any complaints are made against the
petitioner with regard to the distribution of the PDS grains, then
the authorities are free to take necessary action strictly in
accordance with law.
9. With the above directions, the present writ petition
stands allowed to the extent indicated.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…