Patna High Court
Satendra Kumar Das @ Satendra DasversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The show‑cause notice was invalid for not mentioning a proposal for cancellation, rendering the cancellation order void.
Summary
Satendra Kumar Das, holder of license No. 35/16 under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, challenged the cancellation of his license by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Gaya, on the ground that the show‑cause notice issued on 07‑01‑2026 did not state a proposal for cancellation as required by Rule 27(ii) of the Order. The petitioner argued that the omission rendered the notice invalid and sought quashing of the cancellation order. The respondents contended that the petition was non‑maintainable as all remedies had been exhausted and the petitioner had violated the Order. Relying on a prior full‑bench decision (CWJC No.21202 of 2021), the Court held that a notice under Rule 27(ii) must expressly mention the proposal for cancellation; otherwise it is not a valid notice. Consequently, the Court set aside the cancellation order and remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to issue a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice, directing that the petitioner be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether a show‑cause notice issued under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 must expressly mention a proposal for cancellation of the license.
- Whether the cancellation order dated 07‑01‑2026 is valid in view of the alleged procedural defect in the notice.
Subjects
- Public Distribution System
- License cancellation
- Show‑cause notice
- Procedural fairness
- Administrative law
- Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2880 of 2026
======================================================
Satendra Kumar Das @ Satendra Das, Son of Varan Ram, Resident of
Village- Tola Saraiya Sonaut, Village Panchayat- Sonaut, Police Station-
Buniyadganj, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar at Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya, Dist.- Gaya.
4. The Assistant District Supply Officer, Sadar Gaya, Dist.- Gaya.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Manpur, Dist- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binay Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (26)
Mr. Divit Vinod, AC to SC 26
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 02-04-2026 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for seeking the
following relief(s)
“That this is an application for issuance of
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and
direction/directions to quash the order dated
07-01-2026 contained in memo No. 32
passed by the Licensing Authority cum Sub
Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya whereby the
license No.- 35/16 of the petitioner granted
under the Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control)
Order, 2016 has capriciously been cancelled
and for direction upon the respondent No. 3
Patna High Court CWJC No.2880 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
2/5
to continue allocation to the Public
Distribution System Shop of the petitioner
after declaring the suspension 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 has stated that in the Show Cause Notice issued by the
Sub-Divisional Officer there is no proposal for cancellation of
the license. Learned counsel has stated that non-mentioning of
the proposal for cancelling his license is contrary to the
provisions of order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the Order, 2016’).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on
the judgment of the full Bench 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.
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 issuing a fresh
show-cause notice in terms of order 27(ii) of the Control Order,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2880 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
3/5
2016 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 and stated that the present
writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has exhausted
all the remedies and all the authorities have found that the
petitioner has violated the provisions of the Control Order,
2016. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court
to dismiss the present writ petition.
7. 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. ”
8. A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the
petitioner does not reveal that there is any proposal of the action
sought to be taken against the petitioner. Therefore, the same
has to held as bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Rule
27(ii) of the Control Order and has to necessarily set aside.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2880 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
4/5
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 order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya (Respondant No. 3) is set
aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer
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 call for his explanation by giving him
reasonable time.
10. 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 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
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.
12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is
Patna High Court CWJC No.2880 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
5/5
allowed to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…