Patna High Court

Nisar Ahmad @ Md. Nisar AhmadversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 10 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The cancellation orders are set aside and the matter remanded for issuance of a fresh show‑cause notice in compliance with Rule 27(ii) and furnishing the enquiry report.

Summary

The petitioner, Nisar Ahmad, challenged the cancellation of his PDS licence (No. 82/2016) on the ground that the show‑cause notice issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer did not attach the enquiry report nor mention a proposal for cancellation, violating Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice. He argued that the appellate authorities mechanically dismissed his appeal without addressing these procedural defects. 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 (CWJC No.253 of 2014 and CWJC No.21202 of 2021), held that a notice lacking the enquiry report and a clear cancellation proposal is invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders dated 19‑09‑2022, 22‑02‑2022, and 15‑10‑2020 and remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to issue a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice. The petition was allowed in the extent indicated.

Issues considered

The show‑cause notice complied with Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016?
Whether the omission of the enquiry report and a cancellation proposal violates natural justice?
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of a revision remedy?

Subjects

PDS licence
show‑cause notice
natural justice
Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
Rule 27(ii)
licence cancellation
writ petition
administrative law

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5429 of 2025
======================================================
Nisar Ahmad @ Md. Nisar Ahmad, Son of Late Jawed @ Zawwad, Resident
of village- Baluganj, Kumharwa, Jhawwari, P.S.- Jalalgarh, District- Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principle Secretary, Department of Food and
Civil Supplies, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, District- Purnea.
3. The District Magistrate, Purnea, District- Purnea.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baisi, District- Purnea.
5. The Supply Inspector, Under Block- Amour, District- Purnea.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate.
Mr. Nadimul Hasan, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumari A. GP 3 with
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AC to GP 3.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

6 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the

following reliefs:-

“(i) For issuance of
appropriate writ or writs, order or orders
and direction to the concerned
respondent authority to re-call the
cancellation order of PDS License of the
petitioner as such Licence No. 82/2016
and also quashing the order dated
19.09.2022 (as contained in Annexure-3)
passed by the learned Divisional
Commissioner in supply Revision No. 97
Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2025(6) dt.10-02-2026
2/7

of 2022 and also quashing the order
dated 22.02.2022 in supply Appeal No.
276 of 2021 (as contained in Annexure-2)
passed by the Respondent No. 3 by which
the District Collector Purnea District
purnea has not applied his judicial mind
and not consider the facts of the case as
well as Law and on wrong assumption of
facts and law and relied upon the order
dated 15.10.2020 in E.C. Case No.
05/2020 passed by the SDO Baisi
District-Purnea, the Respondent No. 4 by
which who has cancelled the PDS
Licnece No. 82/16 of the petitioner only
on the basis of false and fabricated
report submitted by the supply inspector
Block Amour District-Purnea. That the
Respondents authorities have not
consider the material facts of the case
and not applied their independent
judicial Mind before passing the said
impugned orders which are fit to be set
aside in the eye of law.
(ii) For issuance of
appropriate writ, order or direction to
the concerned respondents to follow the
different circular issued by the
Government State of Bihar for the
purpose of re-appointment or re-call
licence of a person for PDS Dealer after
some penalty.”

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2025(6) dt.10-02-2026
3/7

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

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2025(6) dt.10-02-2026
4/7

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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2025(6) dt.10-02-2026
5/7

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
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:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2025(6) dt.10-02-2026
6/7

“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

19.09.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, the

order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the District Magistrate,

Purnea and the order dated 15.10.2020 passed by the Sub-

divisional Officer, Baisi, Purnea are 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2025(6) dt.10-02-2026
7/7

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.

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…