Patna High Court
Ajay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
Mere institution of an FIR does not constitute a valid ground for cancellation of a PDS licence under the applicable control order.
Summary
Ajay Kumar, holder of a PDS licence, challenged the suspension of his licence dated 08.11.2022 and its subsequent confirmation by the Collector, arguing that the sole ground – the institution of an FIR – was not a valid basis under the Bihar Target Public Distribution Scheme (Control) Order, 2016. The petitioner also sought quashing of the cancellation memo and restoration of his supplies, noting that he had been acquitted of the criminal charges on 05.08.2025. The High Court examined the PDS (Control) Order, 2001 and Rule 7 of G.S.R. No.1 (2007), holding that an FIR alone does not justify licence cancellation. Relying on the precedent set in Umesh Ram v. State of Bihar (AIR 2014 Patna 113), the Court quashed the suspension order and set aside the appellate order, directing immediate restoration of supplies. The Court further clarified that if the petitioner is later convicted, appropriate action may be taken then.
Issues considered
- Whether the mere institution of a First Information Report constitutes a valid ground for suspension or cancellation of a PDS licence under the Bihar Target Public Distribution Scheme (Control) Order, 2016.
- Whether the appellate order confirming the suspension of the licence is legally sustainable.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Target Public Distribution Scheme (Control) Order, 2016
- PDS (Control) Order, 2001
Subjects
- PDS licence
- Suspension
- First Information Report
- Public Distribution System
- Writ petition
- Quashing order
- Mandamus
- Acquittal
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3903 of 2026
======================================================
Ajay Kumar Son of Nawal Kishor Singh, resident of Village- Bhadai, Block-
Aurai, P.S. - Hathauri, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food
Supplies and Consumer Protection, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Muzaffarpur.
3. The Sub. Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur (East), Muzaffarpur.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (13)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
4 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filled for the
following reliefs:-
“i). For quashing the order
contained in 1493/Aa. dated 08.11.2022 passed
by the Sub. Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur East
by which the licence of the petitioner bearing
Licence No. 23-06-25-06/2019 was suspended
with immediate effect vide order contained in
memo no. 741 dated 23.06.2022 and further
asking the petitioner to submit the show cause
within 15 days, as to why his licence should not
be cancelled under the provision of Bihar Target
Public Distribution Scheme (Control) Order
2016.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3903 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026
2/4
ii). To quash the order dated
23.02.2024 passed in Case No. 01/Supply
Appeal/2023 by the Collector-cum-District
Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, confirming the order
of the S.D.O., Muzaffarpur (East) holding that
the suspension of the licence of the petitioner on
account of judicial custody and asking of show
cause, needs no interference.
Further, the petitioner prays for relief
for issuance of writ order or direction,
particularly in the writ of Mandamus, directing
and commanding the respondent authorities to
restore the P.D.S. Licence on the ground that the
petitioner is acquitted vide order dated
05.08.2025 passed in Hathauri P.S. Case No.
153/22 by the learned trial court of S.D.J.M.
(East), Muzaffarpur.
(iii) To quash the memo no. 1677
dated 19.12.2022 passed by the learned S.D.O.,
Eash Muzaffarpur by which the P.D.S. License
of the petitioner has been cancelled.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
solitary ground given in the show cause notice for cancelling the
PDS licence of the petitioner was that an First Information
Report (F.I.R.) bearing Hathauri P.S. Case No. 153 of 2022 had
been instituted against the petitioner. Similarly, the impugned
order has been passed on the sole ground of institution of the
aforesaid FIR against the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3903 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026
3/4
4. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and
has been heard.
5. Having heard the parties and on consideration of
the materials on record, this Court finds merit in the writ
petition. A perusal of the PDS. (Control) Order, 2001 read with
Rule 7 of the notification in G.S.R. No. 1 dated 20.02.2007
makes it clear that mere institution of a First Information Report
would not constitute a valid ground for cancellation of the PDS
licence. This view finds support from the decision of this Court
in Umesh Ram vs. The State of Bihar and others, AIR 2014
Patna 113 as well.
6. In view of the above, the order of suspension dated
08.11.2022 is hereby quashed and consequently the appellate
order dated 23.02.2024 is also set aside.
7. Further it is to be noted that the petitioner has been
acquitted of all the charges in the criminal case filed against him
pursuant to the FIR bearing Hathauri P.S. Case No. 153 of 2022.
8. Needless to say, supplies to the petitioner shall be
restored without delay.
9. It is made clear that, in case, the petitioner is
subsequently convicted in the criminal case instituted against
him, thereafter, the authorities are free to take necessary action
Patna High Court CWJC No.3903 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026
4/4
in accordance with law.
10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands
allowed to the extent indicated.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Gauravkr/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.