Patna High Court
Jyoti RanjanaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The court set aside the Divisional Commissioner’s order and remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned order with notice, allowing the writ petition in part.
Summary
The petitioner, Jyoti Ranjana, was initially selected and licensed as a PDS dealer under the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016. Respondent No.9 challenged her selection, leading the Divisional Commissioner to cancel her selection on the ground that she was younger than the respondent, without issuing notice or providing reasons. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the cancellation order and the subsequent license cancellation, alleging violation of natural justice and specific provisions of the PDS Order. The court held that the authority failed to give a reasoned order or a hearing, contravening Rule 27(ii) and the principles of audi alteram partem, and that the alternative remedy under Rule 32(vii) was not applicable to selection disputes. Consequently, the court set aside the Divisional Commissioner’s order and remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to pass a fresh, reasoned order with notice within eight weeks, thereby allowing the writ petition in part.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s PDS dealer selection without notice and reasons violates principles of natural justice and the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016.
- Whether Rule 27(ii) and other relevant rules of the PDS Order were complied with by the Divisional Commissioner.
- Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Rule 32(vii) that bars the writ petition.
- Whether the disqualification provision in Rule 11(vi) applies to the petitioner’s husband.
Subjects
- PDS dealer selection
- natural justice
- reasoned order
- certiorari
- administrative law
- Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order
- rule of law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2693 of 2025
======================================================
Jyoti Ranjana D/o- Raj Kumar Paswan, W/o- Naresh Kumar Nirala, R/o-
Bishanpur Bande @ Bishanpur Bandey, P.O. Dharampur Bandey, P.S.- Patory,
District- Samastipur, Bihar- 848504.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
4. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Samastipur.
5. The District Selection Committee, Samastipur under the Chairmanship of
District Magistrate, Samastipur.
6. The Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Sadar, Samastipur.
7. The District Supply Officer, Samastipur.
8. The Block Supply Officer, Morwan, Samastipur.
9. Soni Kumari, W/o Amresh Kumar Resident of Village and Post- Dharampur
Bandey, P.S.- Patory, District- Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Paswan, Adv.
: Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Adv.
: Mr. Amar Kumar, Adv.
: Ms. Deepshikha, Adv.
: Ms. Mahi Priya, Adv.
For Respondent No. 9 : Ms. Mahasweta Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.
: Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Singh, Adv.
: Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vivek Pd, Government Pleader (07)
: Mrs. Manisha Singh, AC to GP7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
8 28-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“i. For the issuance of an appropriate
direction, order, or writ in the nature of certiorari,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2693 of 2025(8) dt.28-01-2026
2/12
quashing the order dated 30.11.2024, passed by the
learned Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga
Division, Darbhanga (Respondent No. 3). in P.D.S.
Appeal Case No. 20 of 2022, by which the valid
selection of the petitioner for the P.D.S. Shop
dealership was cancelled on the sole ground that the
petitioner's age is less than that of Respondent No.
9, without issuing notice to the petitioner and
without considering the fact that the date of birth of
the Petitioner as per matriculation certificate is
12.04.1991 and the Respondent no. 9 date of birth is
08.04.1992. therefore petitioner is older than the
Respondent No. 9.
ii. For the issuance of an appropriate
direction, order, or writ in the nature of certiorari,
quashing the Memo No. 33 dated 14.01.2025 passed
by learned Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing
Authority, Sadar, Samastipur (i.c. Respondent No. 6)
by which the Respondent No. 6 has cancelled
petitioner's PDS License No. 264/2019 as per
direction/order dated 30.11.2024 of the Respondent
No. 3 i.e. The Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga
Division. Darbhanga, without considering the fact
and has not been given the sufficient opportunity to
the petitioner against the proposal of cancellation of
her license which is against the Rule 27(ii) of Bihar
Targeted P.D.S. (control) order, 2016.
iii. For commanding and restraining the
respondents to not disturb the petitioner from
discharging his duty as P.D.S. dealer in view of the
facts that the petitioner, being the best suitable
candidate amongst others as the petitioner is
eligible in educational qualification as well as
computer certificate and she got the higher marks
i.e. 56.75% as per merit list and the Respondent No.
9 got 54.63% marks in the said merit list. It is
pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is older
than the Respondent No. 9, accordingly the
petitioner is eligible as per the Rule 9(v) of Bihar
Targeted Public Distribution System (Control)
Order. 2016 and considering the aforesaid aspect,
the District Level Selection Committee has
recommended for her selection.
iv. After quashing the order dated
30.11.2024 and Memo No. 33 dated 14.01.2025,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2693 of 2025(8) dt.28-01-2026
3/12
hold and declare that the petitioner is entitled to run
the said PDS shop on being otherwise she was duly
recommended / selected by the District Level
Selection Committee in the year of 2019.
v. For any other relief or reliefs to which
the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts
and circumstances of this case.”
3. The following relief has been added vide order
dated 23.04.2025 by way of I.A. No. 01 of 2025.
“vi. For the cancellation of the PDS
License of the private respondent (i.e. Respondent
No. 9) vide PDS License No. 37 of 2025 dated
21.01.2025, issued by the Sub Divisional Officer-
cum-Licensing Authority, Sadar, Samastipur.”
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially selected as a
PDS dealer pursuant to the notification issued by the
respondent-State and subsequently, license was issued in her
favour. That based on the complaint made by the respondent No.
9 herein, the Divisional Commissioner has allowed the appeal
filed by the respondent No. 9 and pursuant to which the
authority has cancelled the license issued in favour of the
petitioner.
5. Learned counsel submits that in the impugned
order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, there is
absolutely no reason given by the authority. That as a matter of
fact, the petitioner is a graduate having computer knowledge
Patna High Court CWJC No.2693 of 2025(8) dt.28-01-2026
4/12
and completed her advanced diploma in computer applications
and her date of birth is also as per the SSC record it is
12.04.1991 whereas that of the respondent No. 9 is a graduate
having computer knowledge but only a certificate course which
is a basic course and her date of birth is also 08.04.1992 as per
the SSC record. Learned counsel submits that the authority
without taking the same into consideration has simply passed
the impugned order in a mechanical and pedantic manner and
absolutely no discussion has been made by the authority while
allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No. 9 herein.
Learned counsel submits that the authority has simply stated
that the petitioner is not eligible but has not given the reason for
the same. Learned counsel therefore, prays this Hon’ble Court
to set aside the impugned order passed by the Divisional
Commissioner dated 30.11.2024 and also consequential order
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 14.01.2025 and
restore the license of the petitioner.
6. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel Ms.
Mahasweta Chatterjee, assisted by Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Singh,
Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 9 has
vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present writ
petition. Learned counsel has stated that the authority has passed
Patna High Court CWJC No.2693 of 2025(8) dt.28-01-2026
5/12
the reasoned order duly taking into consideration all the facts
and circumstances and having found that the respondent No. 9 is
a graduate and having computer knowledge. That the husband
of the petitioner is working as a government teacher and,
therefore, selection of the petitioner itself is irregular and bad.
Learned counsel has further stated that the petitioner is having
an alternative and effective remedy of filing a representation
before the Principal Secretary under Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar
Targeted PDS (Control), 2016 and, therefore, the present writ
petition has to be dismissed. Further, learned counsel has stated
that the orders of the Divisional Commissioner have already
been implemented and the license issued in favor of the
respondent No. 9 therefore, the cause in the present writ petition
does not survive and the same has become infrucutous. Learned
counsel has therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the
present writ petition.
7. Admittedly in the present case, the petitioner has
completed the graduation and is having a degree of advanced
diploma in computer application. That the date of birth of the
petitioner as per the SSC, intermediate and other documents is
12.04.1991 whereas the educational qualification of the
respondent No. 9 is that she is graduate, having computer
Patna High Court CWJC No.2693 of 2025(8) dt.28-01-2026
6/12
knowledge, having completed certificate course in computer and
her date of birth as per the SSC is 08.04.1992. It is to be noted
that the impugned order passed by the authority, there is
absolutely no discussion on what basis the authority has come to
the conclusion that the respondent No. 9 is having more
qualification that of the petitioner. The authority except stating
that the petitioner is ineligible to be appointed as a PDS dealer
has not stated anything as to how he has come to the said
conclusion.
8. That with regard to the objection taken by the
learned counsel for the respondent No. 9 that the petitioner is
not qualified to be appointed in the first place as her husband is
working as a government teacher is concerned, it is to be noted
that Rule 11(vi) of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order,
2016 which reads as under;
“11. Disqualifications of getting a fair
price shop license.
(i) ………..
(ii) ………...
(iii) ………..
(iv) ………..
(v) ………...
(vi) A person holding a post of profit in
the Government shall not be allotted a fair price
shop.”
9. A perusal of the above gives an impression that
the same is applicable only to the incumbent to his applying for
Patna High Court CWJC No.2693 of 2025(8) dt.28-01-2026
7/12
the PDS license and not to the family members of the applicant.
Further, the other ground taken by the counsel for the
respondent No. 9 that the petitioner is having an alternative and
effective remedy of filing a representation before the Principal
Secretary under Rule 32(vii) of the Control Order, 2016 against
the orders of the Divisional Commissioner is concerned, the
same is misplaced as the said representation can be made in
cases where license of the PDS dealer is cancelled and
thereafter, he has preferred an appeal and revision and after
exhausting the revision, the alternative remedy is to file a
representation before the Principal Secretary but in cases where
selection of the candidate is in question the only remedy
available to the aggrieved party is to file an appeal before the
Divisional Commissioner and against the said orders of the
Divisional Commissioner, the present writ petition is only
remedy.
10. This Court as well as the Apex Court, on number
of occasions, have held that any authority/Court/quasi judicial
authority have to necessarily give reasoning in the order passed
by them. Unless reasons are given in the order, neither the party
nor the superior forum or Courts before whom the order is
challenged will be in a position to appreciate as to what has
Patna High Court CWJC No.2693 of 2025(8) dt.28-01-2026
8/12
weighed with the said authority either for dismissing or
allowing the application of the petitioner. 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 give a reasoned order which should be
precise, concisely setting out the reason for allowing or
dismissing the contention/application as the case may be.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works
Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.2693 of 2025(8) dt.28-01-2026
9/12
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."
12. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Kranti Associates Private Ltd. and Another vs. Masood
Ahmed Khan and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 at 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 and
constitutional governance is in favour of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2693 of 2025(8) dt.28-01-2026
10/12
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.2693 of 2025(8) dt.28-01-2026
11/12
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.””
13. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, this Court finds it expedient to set aside the
impugned order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga and remand the
matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for passing orders a
fresh. The authority before passing any orders shall put the
petitioner as well as the respondent No. 9 on notice and give
them an opportunity of hearing. The authority shall endeavor to
pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible preferably
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. The authority shall pass a reasoned order duly
giving the reasons either for accepting the claim of the petitioner
or that of the respondent No. 9 herein. The authority shall duly
taking into consideration the observations made by this Court
while passing the orders. Any orders passed shall be
communicated to the parties. In case any adverse orders are
Patna High Court CWJC No.2693 of 2025(8) dt.28-01-2026
12/12
passed against the parties, they are free to challenge the same by
way of separate writ petition.
14. With the above direction, the present writ
petition stands allowed to the extent indicated.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-
U
Checking your session…