Patna High Court
Ashok Kumar Choudhary @ Ashok KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
A show‑cause notice issued under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 must state the proposed cancellation of the licence; otherwise the notice is invalid and any order based on it must be set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Choudhary, challenged a show‑cause notice issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer‑cum‑Licensing Authority under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The notice failed to state a proposal for cancellation of his licence, contrary to Rule 27(ii) of the Order. The High Court, recalling its earlier decision in CWJC 9354/2024 and a full‑bench ruling in CWJC 21202/2021, held that such omission renders the notice invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 10‑02‑2025 and remanded the matter for issuance of a fresh, compliant notice, along with the enquiry report, and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Court directed that the entire process be completed within eight weeks and that any subsequent order be communicated to the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether a show‑cause notice issued under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar TPDS Control Order, 2016 must expressly mention a proposal for cancellation of the licence.
- Whether the absence of such a proposal renders the notice invalid and any consequent order ultra vires.
- What procedural steps must the licensing authority follow after issuing a valid show‑cause notice.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 — s. Rule 27(ii)
Subjects
- show cause notice
- licensing authority
- procedural fairness
- Bihar TPDS Control Order
- cancellation proposal
- administrative law
- writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3323 of 2026
======================================================
Ashok Kumar Choudhary @ Ashok Kumar S/o Krishna Lal Choudhary,
Resident of 322, Near Haweli Gali, Kayasth Toli, Takiyapar, P.S- Danapur,
District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Patna.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer cum- Licensing Authority, Danapur, Dist. Patna.
4. The Sub-Divisional Welfare Officer, Danapur, Dist. Patna.
5. The Block Development Officer, Danapur, Dist. Patna.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Maner, Danapur, Dist. Patna.
7. The Block Supply Officer, Danapur, Urban Area, Dist. Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (22) with
Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, AC to GP 22.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 07-04-2026 This is the second round of litigation. On earlier
occasion, this Court vide order dated 21.10.2024 passed in
CWJC No. 9354 of 2024 has set aside the impugned order dated
03.05.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing
Authority solely on the ground that the show cause notice issued
to the petitioner was not in accordance with Rule 27(ii) of the
Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,
2016.
2. A perusal of the show cause notice dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.3323 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
2/3
20.01.2025/22.01.2025 (Annexure P/9) in Memo No. 80 issued
to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing
Authority, Danapur, District-Patna (Respondent No. 3) reveals
that even in their particular show cause notices, there is no
proposal for cancellation.
3. A full Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 21202 of
2021 and analogues case 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.”
4. Having regard to the law laid down by this
Hon’ble Court in the above mentioned case, the present CWJC
is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Danapur,
District-Patna (Respondent No. 3) is set aside. The matter is
again remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer (Respondent
No. 3) 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 also furnish a copy of the enquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.3323 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
3/3
report along with the Show Cause Notice to the petitioner and
call for his explanation by giving reasonable time. The authority
in the show cause notice shall specify the punishment that is
proposed to be given for violation of the control order, if any.
5. 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 orders strictly in
accordance with law duly taking into consideration the
explanation submitted by the petitioner.
6. 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.
7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is
allowed to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.