Patna High Court

Krishna Ballabh SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 1 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The impugned orders are set aside and the matter remanded for furnishing the enquiry report and granting a fair hearing, thereby restoring the petitioner’s licence.

Summary

The petitioner, Krishna Ballabh Singh, challenged the cancellation of his PDS licence by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, which was affirmed by the Additional Collector and the Divisional Commissioner. He argued that the show‑cause notice was issued without attaching the enquiry report, denying him a fair hearing and violating natural justice. The court noted that the show‑cause notice indeed lacked the enquiry report and that the authorities had not applied their judicial mind or provided reasons for the cancellation. Relying on its earlier decision in CWJC No.253 of 2014, the court held that such procedural deficiencies render the orders indefensible. Consequently, the orders dated 30‑Oct‑2025, 15‑May‑2023 and 18‑Jun‑2021 were set aside and the matter remanded to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to furnish the enquiry report, allow the petitioner to present his explanation, and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks. The writ petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the cancellation of the PDS licence without furnishing the enquiry report and without a proper hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the orders of the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Additional Collector‑Cum‑Additional District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner can be quashed for lack of reasoned findings and failure to apply mind.
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing restoration of the licence.

Subjects

natural justice
show cause notice
PDS licence cancellation
administrative law
certiorari
mandamus
procedural fairness

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2574 of 2026
======================================================
Krishna Ballabh Singh, Son of- Late Vindeswar Singh @ Vindeshwar Singh,
Resident of Village-Main Gali near Temple, Kobil, P.S.- Islampur, District-
Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the 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 Director, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
5. The Collector-cum-Chairman, District Level Selection Committee (Supply),
Nalanda.
6. The Additional Collector-cum- Additional District Magistrate, Nalanda,
District- Nalanda.
7. The District Supply Officer, Nalanda, District- Nalanda.
8. The Additional District Supply Officer, Hilsa, District-Nalanda.
9. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Hilsa, District-
Nalanda.
10. The Block Supply Officer, Islampur, District- Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nityanand Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Alok Abhinav, Adv.
Mrs. Diksha Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Additional Advocate General (4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

2 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

following relief(s):-

“(i. For issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions in the nature
of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the
order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure-P/10) passed
by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.2574 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
2/6

(Respondent No.4) in BTPDS Control Revision
No.223 of 2023 by which the Respondent No.4
has re-affirmed the order dated 15.05.2023
passed by the learned Additional Collector-
Cum-Additional District Magistrate. Nalanda
(Respondent No. 6) without applying his judicial
mind and without assigning any proper reason.
ii. For further quashing of the order dated
15.05.2023 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the
learned Additional Collector-Cum-Additional
District Magistrate, Nalanda (Respondent No.6)
in Supply Appeal No.06/2022 by which the
Respondent No.6 has affirmed the order issued
vide Memo No.286 dated 18.06.2021 passed by
the learned S.D.O.-cum-Licensing Authority,
Hilsa, District-Nalanda (Respondent No. 9)
without going into the merit of the case as well
as facts also.
iii. For further quashing of the office order
issued through Memo No.286 dated 18.06.2021
(Annexure-P/5) passed by the learned S.D.O.-
cum-Licensing Authority, Hilsa, District-
Nalanda (Respondent No. 9) by which the PDS
license of the petitioner bearing License No.1-
37/2007 has been cancelled totally on non-est
and erroneous ground in completely mechanical
manner-without considering the show-cause
reply of the petitioner and without serving of an
Enquiry-Report.
iv. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
Mandamus for directing/commanding the
respondents concerned especially the S.D.O.-
cum-Licensing Authority, Hilsa, District-
Nalanda (respondent no.9) to restore the PDS
license of the petitioner bearing License No. 1-
37/2007 to its original place since the date of
cancellation of the said license i.e. on
18.06.2021.
V. For Further issuance appropriate
Patna High Court CWJC No.2574 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
3/6

writ/order/direction in which the petitioner
found to be entitled in 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

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. Learned counsel has

therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.2574 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
4/6

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.

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.2574 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
5/6

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 orders dated 30.10.2025, 15.05.2023

and 18.06.2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, the

appellate authority and the Sub-Divisional Officer, respectively,

are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-divisional

Officer (Respondent No. 9) 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. If any statements

made by the beneficiaries are relied upon by the authority, the

same shall be furnished to the petitioner, and he shall be given

an opportunity to cross-examine the said beneficiaries to test the

veracity of their statements.

10. On such show-cause notice being served, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2574 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
6/6

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/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.