Patna High Court
Rajendra MehtaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
Mere institution of an FIR does not constitute a valid ground for cancellation of a PDS licence, and therefore the cancellation order is set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajendra Mehta, challenged the cancellation of his PDS licence No. 35/2016 by the Sub‑Divisional Officer‑cum‑Licensing Authority, which was based solely on the institution of an FIR against him. The petitioner argued that the show‑cause notices and the cancellation order lacked any statutory basis. The High Court examined the PDS (Control) Order, 2001 and Rule 7 of G.S.R. No. 1 (2007), holding that a mere FIR does not constitute a valid ground for licence cancellation. Relying on the precedent set in Umesh Ram v. State of Bihar (AIR 2014 Patna 113), the Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the petitioner’s supplies be restored immediately. The Court further clarified that if the petitioner is later convicted, appropriate action may be taken then.
Issues considered
- Whether the mere institution of a First Information Report is a valid ground for cancellation of a PDS licence under the PDS (Control) Order, 2001 and the related notification.
- Whether the cancellation order dated 17‑09‑2024 passed by the Sub‑Divisional Officer‑cum‑Licensing Authority is liable to be quashed.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of his PDS licence and supply of commodities.
Subjects
- PDS licence
- cancellation
- First Information Report
- certiorari
- mandamus
- administrative law
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7282 of 2025
======================================================
Rajendra Mehta S/o Late Chhedi Mehta Resident of Village-Majhari, Ward
No 08, P. S.- Nirmali, District-Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector, Supaul.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer-Cum-Licensing Authority, Nirmali, Supaul.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Nirmali, Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (12)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
5 29-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“(i) For issuance of appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions
in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
order dated 17.9.2024 contained in Memo
No. 1316-2 dated 18.09.2024 passed by the
Learned Sub-Division Officer-cum-Licensing
authority Nirmali by which he has cancelled
the license of the petitioner being License
No. 35/2016 on the basis of a institution of
FIR and further on the basis of notice where
is no stipulation of proposed cancellation.
(ii) For issuance of appropriate
writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/
directions in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to restore the
license of the petitioner being License No.
35/2016.
(iii) For other relief/ reliefs for
Patna High Court CWJC No.7282 of 2025(5) dt.29-01-2026
2/3
which the petitioner is entitled in the eye of
law. ”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
solitary ground given in the show cause notices dated
08.09.2021 vide Memo No. 1231-2 & 06.10.2021 vide Memo
No. 1341-2 for cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioner was
that an First Information Report (F.I.R.) bearing Nirmali P.S.
Case No. 132/2021 had been instituted against the petitioner.
Similarly, the impugned order has been passed on 17.09.2024
vide Memo No. 1316-2 dated 18.09.2024 on the sole ground of
institution of the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and
has been heard.
5. Having heard the parties and on consideration of
the materials on record, this Court finds merit in the writ
petition. A perusal of the PDS. (Control) Order, 2001 read with
Rule 7 of the notification in G.S.R. No. 1 dated 20.02.2007
makes it clear that mere institution of a First Information Report
would not constitute a valid ground for cancellation of the PDS
licence. This view finds support from the decision of this Court
in Umesh Ram vs. The State of Bihar and others, AIR 2014
Patna 113 as well.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.7282 of 2025(5) dt.29-01-2026
3/3
17.09.2024/ 18.09.2024 is set aside.
7. Needless to say, supplies to the petitioner shall be
restored without delay.
8. It is made clear that, in case, the petitioner is
subsequently convicted in the criminal case instituted against
him, thereafter, the authorities are free to take necessary action
in accordance with law.
9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands
allowed to the extent indicated.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-
U
Checking your session…