Patna High Court
Dhaneshwar RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
A show‑cause notice that does not mention a proposal for cancellation under Rule 27(ii) is invalid, rendering the cancellation orders void.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhaneshwar Ram, challenged the cancellation of his PDS license (No. 68/2007) by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, arguing that the show‑cause notice issued under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 did not state a proposal for cancellation as required by Rule 27(ii). The High Court examined the mandatory nature of mentioning the cancellation proposal in such notices, relying on its earlier full‑bench decision in CWJC No. 21202 of 2021. It held that the omission rendered the notice invalid and consequently the subsequent orders of the Sub‑Divisional Officer and the District Magistrate were illegal. The Court set aside both the 18‑July‑2024 and 17‑May‑2025 orders and remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to issue a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice. The petitioner was directed to file his explanation within the stipulated time and the authority to pass a reasoned order after hearing.
Issues considered
- Whether a show‑cause notice issued under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 must expressly mention a proposal for cancellation of the license
- Whether the failure to mention such a proposal invalidates the notice and the consequent cancellation order
Subjects
- Public Distribution System
- License cancellation
- Show‑cause notice
- Rule 27(ii)
- Administrative law
- Writ petition
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6693 of 2026
======================================================
Dhaneshwar Ram, Son of Late Pati Ram, Resident of Village Ward no 11,
Ketharia, Paktola, PS Dumra, District Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi Sadar.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Dumra, Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (04)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 30-04-2026 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for seeking the
following relief(s)
“…. for quashing the order dated Sitamarhi passed
in Appeal No. 57/2024 order dated 17.05.2025
passed by the Learned District Magistrate,
Sitamarhi whereby and where under he has
confirmed the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the
Learned Sub Divisional Officer, -cum-Licensing
Authority, Sitamarhi Sadar. Further for quashing the
order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Learned Sub
Divisional Officer, -cum-Licensing Authority,
Sitamarhi, Sadar by which the PDS license of the
petitioner being License No. 68/2007 has been
cancelled.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has stated that in the Show Cause Notice issued by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6693 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
2/4
Sub-Divisional Officer there is no proposal for cancellation of
the license. 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’).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of the full Bench 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.
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 issuing a fresh
show-cause notice in terms of order 27(ii) of the Control Order,
2016 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 exhausted
Patna High Court CWJC No.6693 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
3/4
all the remedies and all the authorities have found that the
petitioner has violated the provisions of the Control Order,
2016. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court
to dismiss the present writ petition.
7. 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. ”
8. A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the
petitioner does not reveal that there is any proposal of the action
sought to be taken against the petitioner. Therefore, the same
has to held as bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Rule
27(ii) of the Control Order and has to necessarily set aside.
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 17.05.2025 passed by the
District Magistrate, Sitamarhi and the order dated 18.07.2024
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-licensing authority,
Sitamarhi, Sadar are both set aside. The matter is remanded
back to the Sub-divisional Officer for issuing a fresh show-
Patna High Court CWJC No.6693 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
4/4
cause notice to the petitioner strictly in compliance with the
provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 and call for
his explanation by giving him 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
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.
12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is
allowed to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…