Patna High Court
Vinay Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The original cancellation order is bad, arbitrary and illegal, and therefore all subsequent appellate and revisional orders are set aside, with the petitioner’s PDS license to be restored.
Summary
The petitioner, a PDS dealer, had his license (No.70/2019) cancelled after a Sub‑Divisional Officer inspected his shop on 7 June 2021 at 1:40 p.m., which is beyond the working hours prescribed by Rule 15 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The petitioner appealed the cancellation and also filed a revision, but both the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the appeals without addressing the merits. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation, the appellate order and the revisional order, arguing that the inspection was illegal and that the cancellation was arbitrary under Rule 25(i)(a) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Civil Writ 196/01. The High Court held that there is no duty to keep the shop open after the stipulated closing time, making the inspection unlawful and the cancellation order bad, arbitrary and illegal. Consequently, the court set aside the cancellation order, the appellate order and the revisional order, and directed the authorities to restore the petitioner’s PDS license within four weeks. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether an inspection conducted after the stipulated working hours under Rule 15 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 renders the cancellation of a PDS license invalid.
- Whether the cancellation order is arbitrary and illegal under Rule 25(i)(a) of the same Order and the Supreme Court’s decision in Civil Writ 196/01.
- Whether appellate and revisional orders confirming the cancellation stand when the original order is found to be bad.
Subjects
- PDS license
- cancellation
- inspection timing
- administrative law
- writ petition
- arbitrary order
- Bihar Control Order
- Rule 15
- Rule 25
- license restoration
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3007 of 2026
======================================================
Vinay Kumar Ray, s/o Utim Lal Ray, r/o Village -Thadhi, P.S Ladania,
District - Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
3. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Madhubani.
4. The Licensing Officer-cum- Sub Divisional Officer, Jaynagar, District
-Madhubani.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Ladania, District - Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ankit Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Advocate (02)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
4 21-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s) :
“That this petition in writ jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court is being filed for issuance of an
appropriate writ, order or direction to quash
the Revisional order dated 30.10.2025 passed
in Revision Case No. 10/2023 by the learned
Commissioner. Darbhanga, appellate order
dated 26.7.2022 passed by learned Collector-
Cum-District Magistrate Madhubani
(Respondent No. 3) in Appeal No. 31/2021-22
as well as order dated 21.6.2021 vide Memo
No.262 passed by Licensing Officer-Cum-Sub-
Divisional Officer Jaynagar (Respondent No.
4) whereby and where under the P.D.S.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3007 of 2026(4) dt.21-04-2026
2/6
License No.70/2019 of the petitioner has been
cancelled and further to restore the P.D.S.
License of the petitioner and/or for any other
relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is found
fit and entitled.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as PDS
dealer on 08.05.2019 and thereafter he has been continuing to
operate the same. Learned counsel submits that the shop of the
petitioner was physically inspected on 07.06.2021 by the
concerned Sub-Divisional Officer at 1.40 P.M. Thereafter, a
show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which the
petitioner has given a suitable reply. Subsequently, the Sub-
Divisional Officer has passed the order dated 21.06.2021
(Annexure P/8) cancelling the PDS license of the petitioner.
Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner has preferred
a statutory appeal and the revision, the appellate authority as
well as the revisional authority have not considered the merits of
the case and dismissed the appeal and revision, confirming the
cancellation order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated
21.06.2021 vide memo no. 262 (Annexure P/8). Learned
counsel has stated that as per Rule 25(i)(a) of the Control Order,
2016, the licensee is obligated to keep the shop open throughout
the month during the stipulated period. That as per Rule 15 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3007 of 2026(4) dt.21-04-2026
3/6
the Control Order, 2016, the PDS shop should be kept open
from 07.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. from March till August and from
08.00 a.m. to 02.00 p.m. from September to February. Learned
counsel further submits that the inspection of the shop of the
petitioner was done on 07.06.2021 at 1.40 P.M by the Sub-
Divisional Officer is contrary to the provisions of Rule 15 of the
Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,
2016. Further counsel has submitted that the copy of the inquiry
report has also not been submitted to the petitioner along with
the show cause notice.
4. Learned counsel has relied on the judgments of this
Hon’ble Court passed in CWJC No. 15855 of 2023 dated
07.02.2024 and CWJC No. 3759 of 2024 dated 10.05.2024 in
support of his contentions. Learned counsel has stated that the
impugned order of cancellation is bad and liable to be set aside
and prayed this Hon’ble Court to allow the present writ petition
and direct the respondent-authority to restore the PDS license of
the petitioner.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very
maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel has
submitted that there are serious allegations against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3007 of 2026(4) dt.21-04-2026
4/6
petitioner. That at the time of inspection, the Sub-Divisional
Officer had directed the petitioner to produce various registers
but the petitioner failed to do so. Therefore, the authority had to
take necessary action strictly in accordance with law. That the
petitioner was put on notice and given an opportunity of filing
his explanation. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 21.06.2021. That
both the District Magistrate and also the Divisional
Commissioner, who are the appellate authority and the
revisional authority respectively, have also confirmed the order
of Sub-Divisional Officer. Learned counsel has therefore,
prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
6. In order to resolve the issue in the present Writ
Petition, it is necessary to extract the provisions of the Bihar
Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, i.e.,
more particularly Rules 15 and 25(i)(a) of the Control Order,
which read as under :
“15 : Working and Leave :-- (i) A shop
of public distribution system shall be kept open
every day in a week from 7.00 am to 1.00 pm
from March to August and from 8.00 am to 2.00
pm from September to February.
(ii) If a fair price shop owner is
unable to operate the shop due to unavoidable
reasons for a limited period, he shall submit an
application to the licensing authority. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.3007 of 2026(4) dt.21-04-2026
5/6
licensing authority may give him permission to
go in leave after making optional arrangement
for supply of essential commodities to the
consumers related to his shop. The maximum
period of leave shall be of 90 days at a time.”
“25. Action against a licensee. - (i) In
view of the order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Writ196/01, action shall
be taken against the licensees in the following
circumstances :-
Licensees who,
(a) do not keep their shops open
throughout the month during the stipulated
period;
.………...
………….”
7. Admittedly, in the present case, the inspection of
the shop has taken place on 07.06.2021 at 1.40 p.m, i.e., after
the stipulated time. There is no legal obligation on the petitioner
to keep the shop open beyond the stipulated time, i.e., after 1:00
p.m., and as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner has
violated the provisions of the Control Order, 2016.
8. Having regard to the fact that the shop of the
petitioner was inspected beyond the working hours, the
impugned order passed by the authority is liable to be held bad,
arbitrary and illegal. Once the original order is found to be bad,
the subsequently order in the appeal and revision both have no
legs to stand and are liable to be set aside. Having regard to
Patna High Court CWJC No.3007 of 2026(4) dt.21-04-2026
6/6
same, the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the
District Magistrate and the order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer are all set aside. The respondent
authorities are directed to restore the PDS license of the
petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks
from today.
9. With the above direction, the present writ petition
stands allowed.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…