Patna High Court
Parsooram SinghversusThe 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.
Summary
Petitioner Parsooram Singh challenged the cancellation of his Public Distribution System (PDS) licence by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, which was based solely on the institution of an FIR (Fatehpur PS Case No. 460 of 2024). The petitioner argued that the cancellation violated the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016, which requires more than just an FIR for such action. The High Court examined the PDS (Control) Order, 2001 and Rule 7 of G.S.R. No. 1 dated 20‑02‑2007, holding that mere filing of an FIR does not constitute a valid ground for licence cancellation. The Court relied on the precedent set in Umesh Ram v. State of Bihar (AIR 2014 Patna 113). Consequently, the order dated 22‑04‑2026 was quashed, supplies to the petitioner were ordered to be restored, and it was clarified that action could be taken only if the petitioner is later convicted.
Issues considered
- Whether the mere institution of a First Information Report is a sufficient ground to cancel a PDS licence under the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016.
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer’s order dated 22‑04‑2026 complies with the procedural requirements of the PDS (Control) Order, 2001.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- PDS licence
- Cancellation
- FIR
- Writ petition
- Administrative law
- Bihar
- Public Distribution System
- Quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8804 of 2026
======================================================
Parsooram Singh, Son of Lachho Singh, Resident of village- Budhaul, village
Panchayat- Mataso, Police Station- Fatehpur, 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, Sadar Gaya, Gaya.
4. The District Supply Officer, Gaya.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Fatehpur, Dist.- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binay Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Advocate (03)
Mr. Shiv Kumar, AC to GA 3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 25-06-2026 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
22-04-2026 contained in Memo No. 628 by
which the Ld. Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar
Gaya has cancelled the License No. 18/2016
of the petitioner only on the ground of F.I.R
after its notice cum suspension order dated
06-08-2026 contrary to clause 28 of the
Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2016
when the petitioner was not sent to jail or
gone fugitive and for direction upon the
respondent No. 3 to continue allocation to
the Public Distribution System Shop of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8804 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
2/3
petitioner after declaring the order of
cancellation 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 22.04.2026 vide Memo
No. 628 for cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioner was that
an First Information Report (F.I.R.) bearing Fatehpur P.S. Case
No. 460 of 2024 had been instituted against the petitioner.
Similarly, the impugned order has been passed 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.8804 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
3/3
22.04.2026 (Annexure-P/4) is hereby quashed.
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.