Patna High Court
Krishnandan SawversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner must first pursue the statutory revision remedy under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
Summary
The petitioner, Krishnandan, challenged the cancellation of his Fair Price Shop licence under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, seeking quash of the SDO's order dated 24.01.2017 and the Collector's order dated 05.03.2026. He also asked for restoration of the licence, claiming it is his sole means of livelihood. The Court observed that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 32(vi) of the Control Order, which allows filing a revision before the Divisional Commissioner. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks and stipulated timelines for the Commissioner to decide. The Court ordered that all parties be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before any order is passed, and disposed of the writ petition without adjudicating the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a PDS licence is maintainable when a specific revision remedy under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, is available.
- Whether the orders dated 24.01.2017 (SDO) and 05.03.2026 (Collector) can be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
Subjects
- Public Distribution System
- License cancellation
- Writ petition
- Section 32(vi)
- Administrative law
- Revision remedy
- Quash order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6115 of 2026
======================================================
Krishnandan Saw S/o Padum Saw R/o Village- Hasanpur, P.S.- Bankey Bazar,
District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and
Consumer Protection, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sherghati, Gaya.
5. The District Supply Officer, Gaya.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Bankey Bazar, District- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sudhir Kumar Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (21)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 27-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:
“To issue an appropriate order/s,
direction/s including a writ preferably in the nature
of certiorari for quashing of the order dated
05.03.2026 as contained in Memo No 937 passed in
Supply Appeal Case No 166/2017 passed by the
learned Collector -cum- District Magistrate, Gaya
by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioner and affirmed the order passed by the
SDO, Sherghati on 24.01.2017 vide License
Cancellation Case No 07/2017.
(ii) To quash the order dated 24.01.2017
passed in License Cancellation Case No 07/2017
passed by the learned SDO, Sherghati, Gaya
(hereinafter referred to as the Licensing Authority
Patna High Court CWJC No.6115 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
2/3
under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution
System (Control) Order, 2016 whereby and where
under he has cancelled the fair price shop license
of the petitioner for committing illegality and
irregularity in distribution of food grains amongst
the consumers.
(iii) To direct respondent No 4, the SDO,
Sherghati, Gaya to restore the PDS dealership
license of the petitioner henceforth taking into
consideration that the same is only means of
earning livelihood.
(iv) To any other relief/s to which the
petitioner may be found entitled to in 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.
4 On receipt of the revision, the Divisional
Commissioner shall pass necessary orders strictly in accordance
with law within a period of four weeks thereof.
5 It is needless to mention that before any order is
passed, all the parties shall be put on notice and given an
opportunity of hearing and submit their objections.
6 The entire exercise shall be completed as
Patna High Court CWJC No.6115 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
3/3
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight
weeks thereof.
7 Any order passed shall be communicated to all the
parties.
8 With the above said directions, the present writ
petition stands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
M.E.H./-
U
Checking your session…