Patna High Court
Rajendra SahversusThe 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 and the impugned orders are quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajendra Sah, challenged the suspension of his PDS licence by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, which was based solely on the institution of an FIR against him and was effected without considering his reply to the show‑cause notice. He argued that the suspension violated the procedural time limit of 180 days under Rule 28 of the control order and that mere allegation of criminal conduct is not a ground for licence cancellation. The Court examined the PDS (Control) Order, 2001 and Rule 7 of G.S.R. No. 1 2007, holding that an FIR alone does not justify suspension of a PDS licence. It relied on the precedent set in Umesh Ram v. State of Bihar, AIR 2014 Patna 113. Consequently, the orders dated 09‑01‑2025 and 18‑12‑2023 were quashed and the petitioner’s licence was ordered to be restored immediately. The Court clarified that if the petitioner is later convicted, appropriate action may be taken thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether the mere institution of an FIR constitutes a valid ground for suspension of a PDS licence under the PDS (Control) Order, 2001 and related rules.
- Whether the suspension order complied with the 180‑day procedural limit prescribed in Rule 28 of the control order, 2016.
- Whether the authorities were required to consider the petitioner’s reply to the show‑cause notice before suspending the licence.
Legislation cited
- Control Order, 2016 — s. Rule 28
Subjects
- PDS licence
- suspension
- FIR
- show cause notice
- certiorari
- administrative law
- Bihar Food and Civil Supply Department
- procedural fairness
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9283 of 2025
======================================================
Rajendra Sah S/o Late Ram Pratap Sah, Resident of Village- Harpur Balra,
Balara Ismile, Block- Kudhani, P.S.- Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur, P.D.S.
dealer Panchayat Harpur Balara, Block- Kudhani, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary Food and Civil Supply
Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur West P.S.- Town, District-
Muzaffarpur.
3. Block-Supply Officer, Kudhani, P.S.- Kudhani, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shankar Kishore Shahi, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate (11)
For the State : Mr. Pratik Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
8 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filled for the
following reliefs:-
“1. That this an application for
issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing memo no. 28 dt. 09.01.025 as well as
memo no. 1560 dated 18.12.2023 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, West, Muzaffarpur
whereby and where under the Licence of the
petitioner has been suspended without
considering the reply of show cause, after
elapse of more than one year of suspension of
the Licence of the petitioner dated 18.12.2023.
Block Supply Officer Kudhani vide Memo No.
368 dt. 21.12.2023 issued to the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.9283 of 2025(8) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
above cancellation of the shop. It violates Rule
28 of the control order, 2016 where it is stated a
lawful action shall be taken within 180 days
said memo 1560 dt. 18.12.2023 is provided to
this petitioner on 19.02.2025 itself to the when
the petitioner approached to the respondent no.-
2 on 20.12.2024 to restore the P.D.S. Licence.
It is further prayed to direct the
Respondent No. 2 Sub-Divisional, Magistrate,
West, Muzaffarpur to restore the P.D.S. Licence
of the petitioner and to allot the monthly
allotment in favour of the petitioner forthwith.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
solitary ground given in the show cause notice for suspending
the PDS licence of the petitioner was that an First Information
Report (F.I.R.) bearing Maniyari P.S. Case No. 380 of 2023 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.9283 of 2025(8) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
makes it clear that mere institution of a First Information Report
would not constitute a valid ground for suspension 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 orders dated
09.01.2025 and 18.12.2023 are hereby quashed and 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)
Gauravkr/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.