Patna High Court
Rajkumar Sonkar @ Raj Kumar SwarnkarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
A show‑cause notice that does not state a proposal for cancellation is invalid under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and consequently the cancellation orders must be set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajkumar Sonkar, challenged the cancellation of his Fair Price shop licence issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer and upheld by the Collector, arguing that the show‑cause notice did not comply with Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which requires a clear proposal for cancellation. The petitioner sought quashing of both orders and a mandamus to restore the licence. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because a revision before the Divisional Commissioner was an alternative remedy. The Court examined the earlier full‑bench decision in CWJC No.21202 of 2021, which held that omission of the cancellation proposal renders the notice invalid. Finding the notice defective, the Court set aside the cancellation orders and remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer to issue a fresh, compliant notice. The writ petition was allowed, with directions for a timely hearing and reasoned order on the fresh notice.
Issues considered
- Whether a show‑cause notice issued under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, is valid when it fails to mention a proposal for cancellation of the licence.
- Whether the cancellation orders based on such a defective notice can be set aside.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative remedy of revision before the Divisional Commissioner.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 — s. Rule 27(ii)
Subjects
- licence cancellation
- show‑cause notice
- mandamus
- public distribution system
- administrative law
- procedural fairness
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8420 of 2026
======================================================
Rajkumar Sonkar @ Raj Kumar Swarnkar Son of Abhay Kumar Sah,
Resident of Village - Purab Tola Ward No. -14, P.S. - Kahalgaon, District -
Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Collector, Bhagalpur.
3. The Licensing Authority -Cum- Sub- Divisional Officer, Kahalgauon,
District - Bhagalpur.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Kahalgaon, District - Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (11)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 23-06-2026 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for seeking the
following relief(s)
“A. For quashing and setting aside the order passed by
the Licensing Authority-Cum-Sub-Divisional Officer,
Kahalgaon vide Memo No. 1109 dated 29/4/2024
whereby and where under license of the petitioner's Fair
Price shop bearing No. 02/2020 has been cancelled with
immediate effect contained in Annexure -P/1 and
quashing and setting aside the order dated 13/1/2026
passed by the learned Collector, Bhagalpur in Supply
Appeal Case No. 33/2024-25 whereby and where under
appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected and
upheld the cancellation order contained in Annexure –
P/4.
B. A mandamus commanding the Respondents to restore
the petitioner's license as before and to make allotment
for the petitioner's shop.
C. Any other relief or reliefs for which petitioner may be
found entitled in the fact and circumstances of the present
case may be granted to her.”
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.8420 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
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 an alternate
Patna High Court CWJC No.8420 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
3/4
and efficacious remedy of filing a revision before the Divisional
Commissioner. 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 passed by the by the Appellate
Authority dated 13.01.2026 and the order passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Kahalgaon dated 29.04.2024 are set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer for
Patna High Court CWJC No.8420 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
4/4
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 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)
Ayush/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.