Patna High Court

Lal Babu PaswanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 22 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The cancellation order is set aside because the show‑cause notice failed to comply with Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 by not mentioning the proposal for cancellation and not attaching the enquiry report, thereby violating natural justice.

Summary

The petitioner, a licensee of a public distribution shop, challenged the cancellation of his license on the ground that the Sub‑Divisional Officer’s show‑cause notice did not attach the enquiry report nor state a proposal for cancellation, contrary to Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the notice was defective and that the appellate authority had dismissed his appeal mechanically. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because a revision before the Commissioner was an alternative remedy. The High Court, relying on its earlier judgments, held that the procedural requirements of the Control Order were not complied with and that the petitioner was denied a fair hearing. 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. The court directed that the subsequent proceedings be completed within eight weeks.

Issues considered

Whether the omission of a proposal for cancellation in the show‑cause notice violates Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
Whether the failure to attach the enquiry report with the show‑cause notice breaches the principles of natural justice.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of a revision remedy before the Commissioner.

Subjects

license cancellation
public distribution system
natural justice
show‑cause notice
procedural fairness
Bihar
writ petition
administrative law

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5239 of 2026
======================================================
Lal Babu Paswan S/o Balchand Paswan, Resident of Village Dih Manjhauli,
Police Station Bakhtiyarpur, Salimpur, District Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Food and consumer Protection
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The S.D.O., Barh, Patna.
3. The Block Supply Officer, Bakhtiyarpur, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate.
Mr. Roop Kishan, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Ujjawal, SC 4.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

2 22-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the

following reliefs:-

“That the present writ
application is being filed in the nature of
certiorari for setting aside the order
dated 28.2.2026 issued under the
signature of the Learned S.D.O Barh
fully contained in Memo No. 139
whereby and whereunder the license
granted to the petitioner being License
No. 300/2016 for carried out the business
of a Public Distribution Shop in
panchayat Manjhauli within the Block
Bakhtiyarpur District Patna was
cancelled in violation of the principle of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5239 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/6

natural justice, without providing proper
chance of hearing to the petitioner.”
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-

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.5239 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/6

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

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.5239 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
4/6

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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.5239 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
5/6

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

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

28.02.2026 in Memo No. 189 passed by the Sub-Divisional

Officer, Barh, Patna 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.5239 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
6/6

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

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 above.

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…