Patna High Court
Hreday PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
Mere institution of an FIR is not a valid ground for suspension of a PDS licence under the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order.
Summary
Hreday Paswan filed a writ petition challenging the suspension of his PDS licence (No. 59/2016) by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, which was based solely on an FIR lodged against him. The petitioner argued that the suspension violated the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016, particularly Rule 28, which requires a statutory period before action. The court examined the PDS (Control) Order, 2001 and Rule 7 of G.S.R. No. 1 dated 20‑02‑2007, holding that the mere filing of an FIR does not constitute sufficient ground for licence cancellation. The decision was supported by the precedent set in Umesh Ram v. State of Bihar (AIR 2014 Patna 113). Consequently, the court quashed the suspension order, directed immediate restoration of supplies, and clarified that action may be taken only if the petitioner is later convicted. The writ petition was allowed in its entirety.
Issues considered
- Whether the mere institution of an FIR is a valid ground for suspension of a PDS licence under the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016.
- Whether the suspension order complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 28 of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016 — s. Rule 28
- G.S.R. No.1 dated 20.02.2007 — s. Rule 7
- PDS (Control) Order, 2001
Subjects
- PDS licence
- Suspension
- FIR
- Administrative law
- Writ petition
- Quashing order
- Bihar Food and Consumer Protection
- Rule 28
- Rule 7
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7983 of 2026
======================================================
Hreday Paswan, Son of Ram Sagar Paswan, Resident of village- Panakara,
Village Panchayat- Pankara, Police Station- Dumariya, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary Department of Food and
Consumers Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sherghati, Gaya.
4. The District Supply Officer, Gaya.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Dumariya, Dist.- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binay Kumar, Adv .
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (24)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 18-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filled for the
following reliefs:-
“That this is an application for issuance of
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and
direction/directions to quash the order dated
10-02-2025 contained in Memo No. 85 by
which the Ld. Sub Divisional Officer,
Sherghati (Gaya) has suspended the License
No. 59/2016 of the petitioner only on the
solitary ground of F.I.R lodged in Dumariya
P.S. bearing case No. 10/2025 dated 01-02-
2025 and is being continued beyond statutory
period of 180 days contrary to Rule 28 of the
Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2016
and for direction upon the respondent No. 3
to continue allocation to the Public
Patna High Court CWJC No.7983 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
2/3
Distribution System Shop of the petitioner
after declaring the order of suspension null
and void and/or pass such other order(s) as
your Lordships may deem fit and proper
under the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
solitary ground given in the order dated 10.02.2025 vide Memo
No. 85 for suspending the PDS licence of the petitioner was that
an First Information Report (F.I.R.) bearing Dumariya P.S. Case
No. 10 of 2025 had been instituted 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
10.02.2025 (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7983 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
3/3
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)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.