Patna High Court
Birendra DasversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner must pursue a revision under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and therefore disposed of the writ petition without adjudicating the merits.
Summary
Birendra Das filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his PDS licence (No. 29/2016) by the Sub‑Divisional Officer and its affirmation by the District Magistrate. He sought certiorari to quash both the cancellation order and the earlier suspension order, alleging that the cancellation amounted to double jeopardy and was punishable without due process. He also prayed for a mandamus directing restoration of the licence. The Court observed that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks and stipulated procedural timelines for the revision. No merits were adjudicated and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of the PDS licence is valid in view of the earlier suspension order
- Whether the cancellation amounts to double jeopardy and thus violative of principles of natural justice
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari or mandamus to restore the licence
- Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016
Subjects
- PDS licence
- cancellation
- double jeopardy
- certiorari
- mandamus
- revision
- civil writ
- Bihar
- Control Order 2016
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3375 of 2026
======================================================
Birendra Das S/o Late Nathuni Das, R/o village- Naudiha, P.S. - Khizersarai,
District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya Ji.
3. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Gaya Ji.
4. The Additional Collector-cum-Addl. District Magistrate, Gaya Ji.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer Neemchak Bathani, Headquarter, Khizersarai,
Gaya Ji.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Khizersarai, Gaya Ji.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Umesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (28)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
(i) ) For issuance of writ in the nature
of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ for
quashing of the order dated 01.12.2025 issued
as contained in Memo No. 3827 dated
02.12.2025 passed in Supply Appeal No.
05/2024 by the District Magistrate, Gaya Ji,
whereby and whereunder, the appeal of the
petitioner has been dismissed by affirming the
order as contained in Memo No.2166 dated
23.09.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Neemchak Bathani, Gaya Ji.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3375 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/3
ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of
Certiorari or any other appropriate writ for
quashing of the order as contained in Memo No.
2166 dated 23.09.2023 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Neemchak Bathani, Gaya ji,
whereby and whereunder, the PDS licence
bearing No. 29/2016 of the petitioner has been
cancelled with immediate effect in view of under
clause 28 of the Bihar Targeted Public
Disribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
iii) For issuance of the writ in the nature of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ
commanding the respondents to restore the PDS
Licence bearing No. 29/2026 of the petitioner.
iv) For holding that the cancellation order is an
example of double jeopardy as the licence of
PDS shop of the petitioner was suspended vide
order as contained in Memo No. 1934 dated
22.08.2023 and as per the relevant
circulars/control order of the Central
Government and State Government as well as
the order passed by the Division Bench of this
Hon'ble Court, the suspension of the Licence in
itself is a punishment, as such when the
petitioner has already been punished for the
same cause of action, he cannot be again
punished as cancel the licence of PDS shop of
the petitioner for the same charge.”
3. Without going into the merits or demerits of the case,
having regard to the fact that the petitioner is having an alternative
and efficacious remedy of filing a revision under Section 32(vi) of
the Control Order 2016. The petitioner is directed to approach the
Divisional Commissioner ventilating his grievance within a period
of four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3375 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/3
On receipt of the revision, the Divisional Commissioner shall pass
necessary orders strictly in accordance with law within a period of
four weeks thereof.
4. It is needless to mention that before any order
passed, all the parties shall be put on notice and given an
opportunity of hearing and submit their objections. The entire
exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably
within a period of eight weeks thereof. Any order passed shall be
communicated to all the parties.
5. With the above directions, the present Writ petition
stands disposed off to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…