Patna High Court

Rajnarayan Singh @ Rajnarain SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 21 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The cancellation of a PDS shop license without a show‑cause notice that specifies the proposal for cancellation and without attaching the enquiry report violates Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice, and such an order must be set aside.

Summary

The petitioner, a PDS shop licensee, challenged the cancellation of his license by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, arguing that the show‑cause notice did not mention a proposal for cancellation and failed to attach the enquiry report, violating Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority had dismissed his appeal mechanically and that he had an alternative remedy of revision before the Commissioner. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because of the availability of a revision remedy. The High Court examined prior judgments (CWJC No.253/2014 and CWJC No.21202/2021) which held that omission of the proposed cancellation and enquiry report renders a notice invalid. The Court held that the Sub‑Divisional Officer’s order was procedurally defective, set it aside, and remanded the matter for issuance of a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice. The petition was allowed in the extent indicated.

Issues considered

Whether the show‑cause notice issued complied with Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 requiring a clear proposal for cancellation.
Whether the failure to attach the enquiry report with the show‑cause notice violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of revision, rendering the writ petition non‑maintainable.
Whether the cancellation order should be set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh notice.

Subjects

license cancellation
show-cause notice
natural justice
PDS
Bihar
writ of certiorari
mandamus
administrative law
procedural fairness

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4871 of 2026
======================================================
Rajnarayan Singh @ Rajnarain Singh, Son of Tejnarayan Singh, Resident of
Village- Bharthui Garh, P.S.- Jiradei, District- Siwan (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, District- Siwan.
3. The District Supply Officer, District- Siwan.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Siwan Sadar, District- Siwan.
5. The Assistant District Supply Officer, Siwan Sadar, District- Siwan.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Jiradei, District- Siwan.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (16)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

2 21-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the

following reliefs:-

“This writ application has
been filed for issuance of an appropriate
writ/order/direction for granting
following reliefs to the petitioner;
(i) To issue writ of certiorari
for quashing or any writ order to set
aside the order passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Siwan Sadar by vide
Memo No. 139 dated 11.02.2026 whereby
and whereunder the license of the
petitioner PDS shop bearing license No.
144/2016 has been cancelled contained
Patna High Court CWJC No.4871 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/7

therein Annexure-P/4 on the basis of
some general, omnious, false, fabricated
& self manufactured allegations have
leveled against him prejudicially &
purely with pure malicious intention
which is beyond the truth & fact of this
matter and on the contrary of the
provisions.
(ii) A mandamus commanding
the licensing Authority to restore the
license of the petitioner PDS shop
bearing License No. 144/2016 contained
therein Annexure-P/1 & consumers of the
petitioner shop as same as before & too
make the allotment for the same as
before.”

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 non-
Patna High Court CWJC No.4871 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
3/7

supply of the enquiry report along with the show-cause is bad

and against the principle of natural justice and equity.

6. Learned counsel has further stated that petitioner

has taken the above ground in the appeal, but the appellate

authority has not dealt with the above ground and dismissed the

appeal in a mechanical manner.

7. 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

show-cause notice is bad in law and contrary to Rule 27(ii) of

the Control Order, 2016.

8. 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.

9. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4871 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
4/7

writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an

alternative and efficacious remedy of filing a revision before the

Commissioner. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this

Hon'ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

10. 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
regarding non-issuance of cash-memo to
the consumers, distribution of lesser
amount of kerosene oil and non-
distribution of food- grains 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4871 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
5/7

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
materials which formed the basis to drive
home the charges. The orders impugned
are indefensible and cannot be upheld.”

11. 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.”
12. A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the

petitioner does not reveal that the copy of the enquiry report was
Patna High Court CWJC No.4871 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
6/7

enclosed along with the show-cause notice and that there is no

proposal of the action sought to be taken against the petitioner.

13. 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

11.02.2026 in Memo No. 139 passed by the Sub-Divisional

Officer, Siwan Sadar is set aside. The matter is remanded back

to the Sub-Divisional Officer 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 report along with the Show Cause Notice to the

petitioner and call for his explanation by giving reasonable time.

14. 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.

15. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4871 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
7/7

of receipt of a copy of this order. Any order passed shall be

communicated to the petitioner.

16. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands

allowed to the extent indicated.

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…