Patna High Court
Wakil SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The cancellation orders were violative of statutory procedure and natural justice and were therefore set aside, with the matter remanded for a fresh enquiry and hearing.
Summary
Wakil Singh's PDS licence (No. 48/2016) was cancelled by the Sub‑Divisional Officer on 7 July 2022 without attaching the enquiry report or affording a hearing, contrary to Rule 27(II) of the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, 2016. An appeal against the cancellation was dismissed by the Collector on 21 October 2024. Singh filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to quash both orders, restore his licence and obtain a fair opportunity to be heard. The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable because an appeal before the District Magistrate was available. Relying on the principle of natural justice and the earlier Patna High Court decision in CWJC No.253 of 2014, the Court held that the cancellation orders were procedurally defective, set them aside and remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to furnish the enquiry report and conduct a proper hearing within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of a PDS licence without furnishing the enquiry report and an opportunity of hearing violates Rule 27(II) of the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal before the District Magistrate.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016 — s. Rule 27(II)
Subjects
- natural justice
- PDS licence cancellation
- mandamus
- procedural fairness
- Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order
- quashing order
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.567 of 2026
======================================================
Wakil Singh S/o Late Govind Singh, resident of Village-Ojhowaliya,
Lohrabad, P.S.-Piro, District-Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food, Supply and
Consumer Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Bhojpur, Ara.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Piro, District-Bhojpur, Ara.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Piro, District-Bhojpur, Ara.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (04)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
8 08-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“(I) For issuance of appropriate writ
(S)/ Rules(s) / Direction(s) in nature of
mandamus, commanding the concerned
respondents for quashing the order dated
21.10.2024, passed by the Collector, Bhojpur,
Ara in Rev. Appeal No. 08/2023 by which the
Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and
the order dated 07.07.2022 issued vide memo
No. 48/2016 was cancelled by the Sub-
divisional Offier, Piro, Bhojpur was confirmed.
(II) For quashing the order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.567 of 2026(8) dt.08-07-2026
2/6
07.07.2022 issued vide memo No. 1262/Aa by
the Sub-divisional Officer Cum Licensing
Officer, Piro, Bhojpur by which the PDS licence
No. 48/2016 was cancelled without providing
reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as
provided in the Rule 27 (II) of the Bihar
Targeted PDS control order, 2016 and even
without providing the enquiry report to the
petitioner.
(III) For restoration of Petitioner’s
License No. 48/2016 with all facilities, available
to the PDS shop.”
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.
4. 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.
5. Learned counsel has stated in view of the above
mentioned provisions of law and judgment relied by the
petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and matter
remanded back to the authorities concerned for furnishing a
Patna High Court CWJC No.567 of 2026(8) dt.08-07-2026
3/6
copy of the enquiry report and any other material that they seek
to rely on and give an opportunity of filing his explanation and
thereafter take necessary action.
6. 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.
7. 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 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.567 of 2026(8) dt.08-07-2026
4/6
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."
8. 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.567 of 2026(8) dt.08-07-2026
5/6
9. 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 07.07.2022 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the impugned order dated
21.10.2024 passed by the appellate authority are set aside. The
matter is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer
(Respondent No. 3) for furnishing a copy of the enquiry report
and any other material relied on the petitioner and call for his
explanation by giving reasonable time.
10. 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 order strictly in
accordance with law duly taking into consideration the
explanation submitted by the petitioner.
11. It is needless to mention that before passing any
order, 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.
12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is
Patna High Court CWJC No.567 of 2026(8) dt.08-07-2026
6/6
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.