Patna High Court
Braj Kishore SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The order dated 31‑01‑2025 passed by the Sub‑Divisional Officer is set aside as it contravenes the High Court’s earlier judgment and the provisions of the Control Order, 2016.
Summary
The petitioner, a PDS dealer appointed in 2016, had his license cancelled in December 2017 and subsequent appeals were dismissed. The Patna High Court, in CWJC No. 14231 of 2024, set aside the cancellation orders and remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer (SDO) to issue a fresh show‑cause notice in accordance with Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016. The SDO, however, issued a new notice and on 31 January 2025 reiterated the 2017 cancellation without considering the merits, contravening the High Court’s earlier direction. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking certiorari and mandamus to restore his license. The Court held that the SDO’s order was illegal, set it aside, and directed the authorities to restore the licence and grain supply within eight weeks, thereby allowing the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer’s order of 31‑01‑2025, which reiterated a previously set‑aside cancellation, is violative of the principles of natural justice and the High Court’s earlier judgment
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief by way of certiorari and mandamus for restoration of his PDS licence
Legislation cited
- Control Order, 2016 — s. Rule 27(ii)
Subjects
- PDS licence
- cancellation
- natural justice
- certiorari
- mandamus
- administrative law
- Rule 27
- Control Order, 2016
- writ petition
- restoration of licence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7256 of 2025
======================================================
Braj Kishore Singh Son of Late Nagendra Singh, Resident of Village -
Madhaul, P.S. - Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Sub Divisional Officer, (West), District- Muzaffarpur.
3. The Block Supply Officer, Kudhani, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Kumar Rajdeep, Adv.
Mr. Roop Kishan, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (7)
Ms. Roona, AC to GP 7
Mr. Sanjay Kr., AC to GP 7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
3 31-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition is filed for the following
relief(s):-
“a. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing the Order dated
30.01.2025 vide letter no 154 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, West, Muzaffarpur
on remand from the order of this Hon'ble
court in CWJC Case No. 14231 of 2024
dated 26.11.2024, now by order dated
30/01/2025 the Learned S.D.O. West,
Muzaffarpur has again cancelled the
petitioner's license keeping the previous
order of cancellation dated 16.12.2017 as
it is which is in violation of the principles
of Natural Justice, in as much as the
Impugned Orders have been passed
Patna High Court CWJC No.7256 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
2/6
without considering the facts and
circumstances of the case.
b. A mandamus commanding the
Respondents to restore the petitioner's
license as before and to make allotment for
the petitioner's shop.
c. For issuance of any other relief or
relief(s) for which the petitioner is entitled
in the fact and circumstances of the present
case may be granted to him.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier appointed as
PDS dealer in the year 2016 and has been functioning without
any complaint. That the Block Supply Officer had inspected the
shop of the petitioner on 22.07.2017 and submitted his report.
Thereafter the authority, i.e., the Respondent No. 2 herein has
issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and the order of
cancellation was passed by the authority on 16.12.2017. Though
the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the District
Magistrate as well as the revision before the Divisional
Commissioner the same has met without any success and both
the authorities while dismissing the appeal and Revision have
confirmed the order of cancellation. Thereafter the petitioner has
approached this Hon’ble Court by way of CWJC No. 14231 of
2024 and this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 26.11.2024 has set
aside all the three orders passed against the petitioner, i.e., order
Patna High Court CWJC No.7256 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
3/6
dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Revisional Authority, order
dated 10.07.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority and also the
order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer
and remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for
passing orders afresh after issuing the petitioner a fresh show
cause notice strictly in terms of the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of
the Control Order, 2016. That the Sub-Divisional Officer after
remand back by this Hon’ble Court has issued a fresh show
cause notice to the petitioner on 17.12.2024 (Annexure P/2) and
has passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure
P/4). Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to
the impugned order dated 31.01.2025, whereby the Sub-
Divisional Officer while rejecting the explanation filed by the
petitioner has held that the earlier order passed by him, dated
16.12.2017 holds good. Learned counsel submits that order of
the Respondent No. 2 in reiterating the earlier order which has
already been set aside by this Hon’ble Court is bad, illegal and
contrary to law. Further the learned counsel has stated that
because of the cancellation of the PDS linense the petitioner has
been suffering since the last more than eight years and the
authorities are passing the orders in a pedantic and mechanical
manner contrary to the provisions of the Control Order, 2016.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7256 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
4/6
Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to
allow the present writ petition, set aside the impugned order and
direct the authorities to restore the PDS license of the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents-State has vehemently opposed the very
maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel
submits that the petitioner is having an alternative and effective
remedy of filing a statutory appeal against the order of
cancellation passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated
31.01.2025. Learned counsel has stated that in case the
petitioner is aggrieved by the order of cancellation, he can file
an appeal and take all the grounds that are taken in the present
writ petition and assail the order passed by the Sub-Divisional
Commissioner before the Appellate Authority i.e., the District
Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. Learned counsel has therefore prayed
this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
5. A perusal of the order passed by this Court in
CWJC No. 14231 of 2024 dated 26.11.2024 reveals that the
earlier order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated
16.12.2017 and the orders passed by the Appellate and the
Revisional Authority were all set aside and the matter was
remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for passing orders
Patna High Court CWJC No.7256 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
5/6
afresh after issuing the petitioner a fresh show cause notice
strictly in terms of the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Control
Order, 2016. However a perusal of the show cause notice issued
to the petitioner as well as the impugned order passed by the
authority reveals that the authority has simply reiterated the
earlier order passed by him which order was already set aside by
this Court. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order
passed by the authority cannot be sustained in law, as the same
is not only contrary to the provisions of the Act but also the
orders passed by this Court in CWJC No. 14231 of 2024 dated
26.11.2024. The authority instead of passing the orders on
merits has simply stated that the earlier order passed by him
dated 16.12.2017 holds good. It is beyond the comprehension of
this Court as to how the authority can reiterate an order, which
has already been set aside by this Court. The authority instead of
passing a fresh order on merits has simply stated that the earlier
order holds good. The argument of the learned counsel for the
State that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity
is totally misconceived and misplaced. Once an order is set
aside, the authority cannot rely on the very same order and
reiterate the same while passing the order after remand.
6. Having regard to the same, the present writ petition
Patna High Court CWJC No.7256 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
6/6
is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 passed by
the Sub-Divisional Officer is set aside. Having regard to the fact
that the petitioner has been suffering since the last more than
eight years, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has
already suffered enough and no useful purpose will be served by
remanding the matter again. Therefore, the authorities are
directed to restore the license of the petitioner as expeditiously
as possibly preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date
of receipt of the copy of this order. The authorities are directed
to restore the supply of grains to the petitioner at the earliest.
7. With the above directions, the present writ petition
stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…