Patna High Court

Shandev Mallik @ Sandev MallikversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 15 June 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The omission of the enquiry report and the failure to state a proposal for cancellation in the show‑cause notice violate Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and natural justice, rendering the cancellation orders void.

Summary

Shandev Mallik challenged the cancellation of his PDS licence, arguing that the Sub‑Divisional Officer’s show‑cause notice neither enclosed the enquiry report nor mentioned a proposal for cancellation, contrary to Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied on earlier Patna High Court judgments that held such omissions invalid. The respondents contended the writ petition was non‑maintainable as all remedies were exhausted. The Court examined the statutory requirement of attaching the enquiry report and stating the proposed action in the notice, finding the authorities had acted mechanically and violated natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders dated 23‑08‑2017, 25‑04‑2018 and 18‑03‑2026 and remanded the matter for issuance of a fresh, compliant show‑cause notice.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to attach the enquiry report to the show‑cause notice violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the omission of a proposal for licence cancellation in the show‑cause notice breaches Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
Whether the appellate and revisional authorities erred by dismissing the appeal without addressing the above procedural defects.
Whether the cancellation orders of the PDS licence are liable to be set aside on the ground of procedural irregularity.

Legislation cited

Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 — s. Rule 27(ii)

Subjects

PDS licence
show‑cause notice
natural justice
administrative law
Bihar
Rule 27(ii)
enquiry report
writ petition

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7823 of 2026
======================================================
Shandev Mallik @ Sandev Mallik S/o Late Gulat Mallik, Resident of Village-
Babhangama, P.S.- Bihariganj, District- Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Food and
Consumer Protection Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa.
3. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Madhepura.
4. The District Supply Officer, Madhepura.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Bihariganj, District-Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Praveen Kumar Agrawal
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Advocate (11)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

2 15-06-2026 Head learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

following relief(s):-

“i. For quashing the order dated
18.03.2026 passed by the Ld. Divisional
Commissioner, Koshi (Saharsa) in Supply
Revision Case No.- 109/2025 whereby the
revision was dismissed and order of Ld.
Collector, Madhepura dated 25-04-2018 in
Appeal No.-64/2017 was affirmed.
ii. For quashing the order dated 25-04-
2018 passed by the learned Collector,
Madhepura in P. D. S. License Appeal Case
No. 64/2017 whereby order of learned
S.D.O., Udakishunganj dated 23-08-17
cancelling the licence of the petitioner has
been affirmed and appeal was dismissed.
iii. For quashing the order dated 23-08-
2017 contained in Memo No.-3486 issued
by the S.D.O., Udakisunganj whereby
Patna High Court CWJC No.7823 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
2/6

P.D.S. license of the petitioner bearing no.
184/2007 has been cancelled on the
charges of irregularity in distribution.
iv. For a direction to the respondents to
restore supply to the petitioner and for any
other relief(s) for which the petitioner is
found to be entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”

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-

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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7823 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
3/6

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

writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has exhausted

all the remedies as provided under the law. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7823 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
4/6

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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.7823 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
5/6

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

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

18.03.2026 passed by the revisional authority, order dated

25.04.2018 passed by the appellate authority and the order dated

23.08.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer are set aside.

The matter is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer
Patna High Court CWJC No.7823 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
6/6

(Respondent No. 5) 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.

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 is

allowed to the extent indicated above.

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Praveen Kumar Agrawal