Patna High Court
Umesh Ghosh @ Umesh Kumar GhoshversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The petition is not maintainable as the petitioner must first avail the alternative remedy of filing a revision under Section 32(vi) of the Control Order, 2016.
Summary
The petitioner, Umesh Ghosh, challenged the cancellation of his license No.01/2022 by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya, and the subsequent affirmation of that cancellation by the District Magistrate in a supply appeal. He sought a writ to quash the cancellation order and to direct the authorities to continue allocation of supplies to his Public Distribution System shop. The High Court observed that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 32(vi) of the Control Order, 2016, by filing a revision before the Divisional Commissioner. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue that revision within four weeks and stipulated timelines for the Commissioner’s decision and subsequent hearing. The writ petition was therefore disposed of without addressing the merits of the cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition challenging the cancellation of the license is maintainable when an alternative remedy under Section 32(vi) of the Control Order, 2016 is available.
- Whether the High Court can quash the cancellation order and the subsequent affirmation by the District Magistrate.
Legislation cited
- Control Order, 2016 — s. 32(vi)
Subjects
- license cancellation
- public distribution system
- writ petition
- revision
- administrative law
- Control Order 2016
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5351 of 2026
======================================================
Umesh Ghosh @ Umesh Kumar Ghosh son of Laxman Prasad, Resident of
village-Naudiha, Police Station- Fatehpur, 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, Fatehpur, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binay Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Addl. Advocate General (04)
======================================================
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 filled for the
following reliefs:-
(i) That this is an application for issuance
of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and
direction/directions to quash the order dated 31-10-
2018 contained in memo No.1433 by which the Ld.
Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya has capaciously
been cancelled the License No. 01/2022 and quash the
consequential order dated 05-03-2026 contained in
Memo No. 953 passed in Supply Appeal case No.-
04/2022 by the District Magistrate, Gaya whereby
while dismissing the appeal has affirmed the order of
cancellation in mechanical manner and for direction
upon the respondent No. 3 to continue allocation to the
Public Distribution System Shop of the petitioner after
declaring the cancelation order null and void and/or
pass such other order(s) as your Lordships may deem
Patna High Court CWJC No.5351 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/2
fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
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.
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 of to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…