Patna High Court
Nishant RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The cancellation order is set aside as the show‑cause notice did not comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
Summary
The petitioner, a PDS dealer, challenged the cancellation of his license by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, arguing that the show‑cause notice was defective because it neither enclosed the enquiry report nor mentioned a proposal to cancel the license, contrary to Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The petitioner relied on earlier Patna High Court judgments that held such omissions violate natural justice and render the notice invalid. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable, asserting that an appeal before the District Magistrate was the appropriate remedy. The Court examined the statutory requirements and the precedents, concluding that the notice failed to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards. 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 with the enquiry report, directing the entire process be completed within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of the PDS dealer's license without a show‑cause notice that includes the enquiry report and a clear proposal for cancellation violates Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal before the District Magistrate.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 — s. Rule 27(ii)
Subjects
- license cancellation
- public distribution system
- show‑cause notice
- natural justice
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4790 of 2026
======================================================
Nishant Raj S/o Shaligram Prasad, Resident of village and Post- Paibigha,
Police Station- Belaganj, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Food and
Consumers Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
3. The District Supply Officer, Gaya.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Belaganj, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (11)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
3 07-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“1. That this is an application for
issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders
and direction/directions to quash the order
dated 20-12-2025 contained in memo No.582 by
which the Ld. Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar
Gaya has capaciously been cancelled the
License No. 01/2019 of the petitioner carrying
on business under the Public Distribution
System as a P.D.S. dealer and for direction upon
the respondent No. 4 to continue allocation to
the Public Distribution System Shop of the
petitioner after declaring the cancellation order
Patna High Court CWJC No.4790 of 2026(3) dt.07-07-2026
2/6
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 the Sub-Divisional Officer while
issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner has not enclosed
the enquiry report and there is no proposal for cancellation of
the license in the show-cause notice.
4. 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’)
5. Further learned counsel has relied on the judgment
of this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.253 of 2014 dated
11.03.2015 wherein this Hon’ble Court has held that the
nonsupply of the enquiry report along with the show-cause is
bad and against the principle of natural justice and equity.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on
the judgment of the Full Court 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4790 of 2026(3) dt.07-07-2026
3/6
show-cause notice is bad in law and contrary to Rule 27(ii) of
the Control Order, 2016.
7. Learned counsel has stated in view of the above
mentioned provisions of law and judgments 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,
2016 and also furnish a copy of the enquiry report along with
the said show-cause notice and thereafter take necessary action.
8. 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 an
alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the
District Magistrate. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this
Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
9. This Court in CWJC No.253 of 2014 dated
11.03.2015 held as under:
"In my opinion, irregularities in
maintenance of notice board or maintenance of
the stocks within the premises of the petitioner
are too trivial and cannot form a basis for
cancellation of licence. No doubt there were
other serious charges against the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.4790 of 2026(3) dt.07-07-2026
4/6
regarding non-issuance of cash-memo to the
consumers, distribution of lesser amount of
kerosene oil and non-distribution of foodgrains
but surprisingly even while making such
allegations, the names of such consumers who
are dissatisfied by such action of the petitioner
are conspicuously missing. The allegations are
sweeping in nature without reference to any
specific consumer.
In my opinion the non-supply of the
enquiry report conducted by the District Level
Committee which is the foundation for issuance
of show cause notice placed at Annexure-1 as
well as non-supply of names of such of the
consumers who had complained against the
petitioner as regarding the irregularities in
distribution of the food-grains or the kerosene
oil has prejudiced the petitioner to file his
purposeful reply and in absence thereof, the
order impugned in my opinion, are based on no
materials.
Though it was strenuously argued by
Mr. Pandey that in absence of any response by
the petitioner the allegations would be deemed
to have been admitted but in my opinion even if
the show cause reply was missing, the orders
passed by the statutory authorities having civil
consequences and resulting in cancellation
should reflect application of mind.
Unfortunately it is grossly missing inasmuch as
neither the order of the Licensing Authority nor
the order of the appellate authority deal with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4790 of 2026(3) dt.07-07-2026
5/6
materials which formed the basis to drive home
the charges. The orders impugned are
indefensible and cannot be upheld."
10. Further 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. ”
11. A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the
petitioner does not reveal that the copy of the enquiry report was
enclosed along with the show-cause notice and that there is no
proposal of the action sought to be taken against the petitioner.
12. 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
20.12.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer
(Respondent No. 4) for issuing a fresh show-cause notice to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4790 of 2026(3) dt.07-07-2026
6/6
petitioner strictly in compliance with the provisions of Rule
27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 and also furnish a copy of the
enquiry report along with the Show Cause Notice to the
petitioner and call for his explanation by giving reasonable time.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is
allowed to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Gauravkr/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.