Patna High Court
Nandkishor Prasad,versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The cancellation order dated 17‑10‑2019 is set aside and the matter is remanded for a fresh, reasoned order after granting the petitioner a hearing.
Summary
The petitioner, a licensed dealer under the Bihar Public Distribution System (PDS), challenged the cancellation of his license by the Sub‑Divisional Officer on the ground that the order was issued without any reasoning or proper hearing. The petitioner had responded to a show‑cause notice dated 22‑08‑2019, but the authority relied solely on a report of the Assistant District Supply Officer and dismissed the explanation without comment. The State argued that the petitioner could have appealed under Clause 32(3) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and that the order was not amenable to judicial review. The Court held that administrative orders must be reasoned and must afford the principles of audi alteram partem, citing Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the cancellation order dated 17‑10‑2019 was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh, reasoned order after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer's cancellation order of the PDS license is valid in the absence of reasons and a hearing.
- Whether the petitioner was required to exhaust the alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Clause 32(3) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 before approaching the High Court.
- Whether the principles of audi alteram partem and the requirement of a reasoned order apply to quasi‑judicial administrative actions.
Subjects
- Public Distribution System
- license cancellation
- audi alteram partem
- reasoned order
- administrative law
- writ petition
- Article 226
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22687 of 2019
======================================================
Nandkishor Prasad, Son of Tilakdhari Prasad, Resident of Village-Kharauan,
Village Panchayat-Moramardana, Police Station-Bodh Gaya, District Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and
Consumers Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya.
4. Assistant District Supply Officer, Sadar Gaya.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Bodh Gaya, Dist-Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binay Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.S.Raza Ahmad (AAG 5)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“………….for issuance of appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders and
direction/directions to quash the order
dated 17-10-2019 contained in memo No.
966 by which the Ld. Sub Divisional
Officer, Sadar Gaya has capaciously been
cancelled the License No. 08/18 of the
petitioner carrying on business under the
Public Distribution System as a P.D.S
dealer and for direction upon the
respondent No. 3 to continue allocation to
Patna High Court CWJC No.22687 of 2019(2) dt.11-02-2026
2/6
the Public Distribution System Shop of the
petitioner after declaring the cancelation
order null and void and/or pass such other
order(s) as your Lordships may deem fit
and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the Respondent No. 3, i.e., Sub-
Divisional Officer has passed the order of termination of the
P.D.S. license of the petitioner without any application of mind
and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel
further submits that pursuant to the inspection which has been
taken place on 28.07.2019, the Block Development Officer has
issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 22.08.2019
(Annexure 1), to which the petitioner has given a suitable
explanation (Annexure 2). Thereafter the authority without
adverting to the said show cause filed by the petitioner has
passed the impugned order of cancellation based on the opinion
given by the Assistant District Supply Officer. Learned counsel
submits that the impugned order is bereft of any reasons, the
authority except stating that the explanation submitted by the
petitioner is not satisfactory, has neither adverted to the
explanation nor passed the order on merit. Learned counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.22687 of 2019(2) dt.11-02-2026
3/6
therefore submits that the impugned order of termination may
be set aside and the matter remanded back to the authority
concerned for passing orders afresh duly giving an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent-State has vehemently opposed the
very maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel has
stated that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious
remedy of filing an appeal before the District Magistrate under
Clause 32(3) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016. However, the petitioner without availing
the same has straight away approached this Hon’ble Court by
filing the present CWJC. Learned counsel further submits that
there are serious allegations against the petitioner with regard to
the running of the PDS shop and the authorities duly taking into
consideration the report of the Assistant District Supply Officer
has passed the impugned order. That there are no infirmities in
the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer which requires
any interference from this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
5. A perusal of the impugned order dated
17.10.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer reveals that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.22687 of 2019(2) dt.11-02-2026
4/6
authority has relied on the report submitted by the Assistant
District Supply Officer and passed the order of termination.
Further it is to be noted that the authority except stating that the
explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory has
not given the reasons for passing the order.
6. This Court as well as the Apex Court, on
number of occasions, have held that any administrative
authority/Court/quasi judicial have to necessarily give reasoning
in the order/s 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 party. 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 pass a reasoned order which should be precise,
concisely setting out the reason/s for allowing or dismissing the
contention/application, as the case may be. However in this
Case it is to be noted that the authority has not adverted to the
explanation submitted by the petitioner.
7. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax
Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla
Patna High Court CWJC No.22687 of 2019(2) dt.11-02-2026
5/6
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 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, the impugned order
dated 17.10.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is set
aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer
Patna High Court CWJC No.22687 of 2019(2) dt.11-02-2026
6/6
(Respondent No. 3) for passing orders afresh. In case the
authority relys on any enquiry report, the same shall be
furnished to the petitioner and he shall be given an opportunity
of filing a fresh explanation. Thereafter the authority shall pass a
reasoned order duly adverting to the explanation submitted by
the petitioner.
9. 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 12 weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Any order passed shall be
communicated to the petitioner.
10. With the above directions, the present writ petition
stands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…