Patna High Court
Sakaldeep RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The show‑cause notice was defective for not mentioning the cancellation proposal and for not attaching the enquiry report, rendering the cancellation orders void; consequently, the orders were set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh, compliant notice.
Summary
The petitioner, a PDS licence holder, challenged the cancellation of his licence by the Sub‑Divisional Officer and its affirmation by the Divisional Commissioner, alleging that the show‑cause notice violated Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 by not stating a proposal for cancellation and by failing to attach the enquiry report. The petitioner argued that this breach of natural justice rendered the cancellation orders void and that the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of a revision remedy. The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable and that the appropriate remedy lay in filing a revision. The Court examined prior decisions (CWJC No.253/2014 and CWJC No.21202/2021) which held that a notice lacking the required proposal and enquiry report is invalid. Finding the show‑cause notice defective, the Court set aside both the Sub‑Divisional Officer’s cancellation order and the Divisional Commissioner’s affirmation, and remanded the matter for issuance of a fresh, compliant notice. The Court directed that the fresh notice must include the enquiry report and give the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard, with the entire process to be completed within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the show‑cause notice issued under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 complied with Rule 27(ii) requiring a clear proposal for licence cancellation and attachment of the enquiry report.
- Whether the failure to comply with Rule 27(ii) vitiates the cancellation order and warrants its quash.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable notwithstanding the existence of a revision remedy before the Commissioner.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 — s. Rule 27(ii)
Subjects
- PDS licence
- show‑cause notice
- Rule 27(ii)
- natural justice
- cancellation order
- writ petition
- mandamus
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6098 of 2026
======================================================
Sakaldeep Ram, son of Mukund Rai @ Makun Paswan, resident of Village-
Samahuta, P.O- Banjari, Samahuta, P.S- Rohtas, District- Rohtas, Bihar, PIN-
821303.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food
Supplies and Consumer Protection, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram.
4. The Sub. Divisional Officer, Dehri, Disrict Rohtas.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Additional Advocate General (4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
3 14-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) For quashing the order
dated 12.02.2026 passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Patna
Division, Patna In BTPDS Control
Revision No. 30-2025 by which the
cancellation order of PDS licence of the
petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Dehri contained in Memo No. 38 dated
16.01.2024 was affirmed and refused to
interfere in the order dated 10.01.2025
passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas
in Supply Appeal No. 05/24.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6098 of 2026(3) dt.14-05-2026
2/7
(ii) To quash the order
contained in memo No. 38 dated
16.01.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Dehri by which the PDS license
of the petitioner bearing Licence No.
31/2016 was cancelled.
Further, the petitioner prays
for relief for issuance of writ order or
direction, particularly in the writ of
Mandamus, directing and commanding
the respondent authorities to restore the
PDS. License on the ground that the
petitioner has violated the provision
under Clause 32 of the Bihar Targeted
Public Distribution System (Control)
Order, 2016.”
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.6098 of 2026(3) dt.14-05-2026
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.6098 of 2026(3) dt.14-05-2026
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.6098 of 2026(3) dt.14-05-2026
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.6098 of 2026(3) dt.14-05-2026
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
12.02.2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna
Division, Panta and the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Dehri are both 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.6098 of 2026(3) dt.14-05-2026
7/7
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/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.