Patna High Court

Jitendra SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The Court set aside the cancellation orders as they were passed without complying with Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and remanded the matter for issuance of a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice.

Summary

The petitioner, Jitendra Singh, challenged the cancellation of his Public Distribution System (PDS) licence by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, arguing that the show‑cause notice violated Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 because it neither attached the enquiry report nor mentioned a proposal for cancellation. The petitioner contended that this breach of natural justice rendered the subsequent orders of the District Magistrate and the Commissioner invalid. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as a revision remedy was available. The High Court, relying on its earlier judgments, held that the failure to comply with Rule 27(ii) made the notice defective and the cancellation orders unsustainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders dated 02‑03‑2020, 19‑06‑2023, and 26‑09‑2024/01‑11‑2024, and remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to issue a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice. The petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a show‑cause notice issued under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, is invalid if it does not attach the enquiry report and does not state a proposal for licence cancellation.
Whether the cancellation of a PDS licence without complying with Rule 27(ii) violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of a revision remedy before the Commissioner.
Whether the orders of the Sub‑Divisional Officer, District Magistrate and Commissioner can be set aside on the ground of procedural irregularity.

Subjects

PDS licence
show-cause notice
natural justice
Rule 27(ii)
Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order 2016
licence cancellation
writ petition
administrative law

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2214 of 2025
======================================================
Jitendra Singh, Son of Late Kalika Singh, Resident of Village- Tawakal Tola
(Pithauri), P.S.- Baniyapur, District- Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supply,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran at Chapra.
3. The Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.
4. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Sadar, Saran.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Baniyapur, Saran.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Krishna Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Manish, Standing Counsel (5)
Mr. Prashant Kumar, AC to SC 5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

3 16-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

following relief(s):-

“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
'Certiorari for setting aside the orders dated
26.09.2024/01.11.2024 passed by the court of
learned Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra
in Supply Revision Case No.331/2023 whereby
and whereundser the revision filed by the
petitioner for setting aside the order dated
19.06.2023 passed in Supply Appeal No.57/2020
by the District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra by
which the order as contained in memo No.1302
Patna High Court CWJC No.2214 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
2/7

dated 02.03.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Sadar, Chapra has been affirmed in
which the P.D.S. licence No.21/16 of the
petitioner was cancelled.
(ii) For further to set aside the order as
contained in memo No.1302 dated 02.03.2020
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar,
Chapra by which the P.D.S. licence No.21/2016
of the petitioner has been cancelled in violation
of Rule-27(II) of the Bihar Targetted Control
Order 2016 as also to set aside the order dated
19.06.2023 of the District Magistrate, Saran at
Chapra passed in Supply Appeal No.57/2020 by
which the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sadar, Chapra has been affirmed.
(iii) For further after setting aside the orders as
aforesaid to restore the P.D.S. licence No.21/16
of the petitioner and resume the supply.
(iv) For any other relief/reliefs to which the
petitioner is entitled in the facts 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

the proposal for cancelling his license is contrary to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2214 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
3/7

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

remanded back to the authorities concerned for issuing a fresh
Patna High Court CWJC No.2214 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
4/7

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
the enquiry report conducted by the District
Level Committee which is the foundation for
Patna High Court CWJC No.2214 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
5/7

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
the BTPDS Control Order. ”
Patna High Court CWJC No.2214 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
6/7

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

26.09.2024/01.11.2024 passed by the revisional authority, order

dated 19.06.2023 passed by the appellate authority and the order

dated 02.03.2020 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 concern shall pass a reasoned orders strictly in

accordance with law duly taking into consideration the

explanation submitted by the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2214 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
7/7

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/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…