Patna High Court
Prabhu Dyal Rai @ Prabhu Dyal SharanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed as the judgment of the Single Judge does not exhibit illegality, infirmity or perversity.
Summary
The appellant, a Public Distribution System dealer, challenged the cancellation of his PDS licence (No. 06-GHT-01/08) originally ordered in 2013 and upheld by successive statutory authorities, including the Sub‑Divisional Officer, the Collector‑Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner. After exhausting statutory appeals and revisions, he filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the Single Judge, a decision he appealed via a Letters Patent intra‑court appeal. The appellant argued that the cancellation was arbitrary, violated natural justice and Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, and that the licence should be restored. The respondents contended that the statutory orders were lawful and based on consumer complaints. The High Court affirmed that the scope of interference in a Letters Patent appeal is limited to detecting perverse or illegal findings, and found no such infirmity in the earlier judgments, noting the lapse of nine and a half years made restoration purposeless. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Single Judge's decision did not suffer from illegality, infirmity or perversity.
Issues considered
- Whether the judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition suffers from any illegality, infirmity or perversity warranting interference in an intra‑court appeal.
- Whether the cancellation of the appellant's PDS licence was arbitrary, violative of natural justice, and in breach of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
Subjects
- PDS licence
- cancellation
- natural justice
- Articles 14
- Articles 15
- Letters Patent Appeal
- intra‑court appeal
- administrative law
- statutory authority
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.803 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5511 of 2023
======================================================
Prabhu Dyal Rai @ Prabhu Dyal Sharan, aged about 78 years (Male), S/o
Late Ganour Prasad, Resident of Village- Gaus Nagar, P.O. and P.S. - Gaighat,
District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut, Muzaffarpur.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Muzaffarpur.
4. The District Supply Officer, Muzaffarpur.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, East Muzaffarpur.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Gaighat, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, A.A.G.-5 and Mr. Alok
Ranjan, A.C. to A.A.G.-5.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
6 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 5511 of 2023, whereby the
writ application filed by the appellant was dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.803 of 2023(6) dt.02-02-2026
2/7
appellant was a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer of
Boaridih Panchayat under Gaighat Block, District Muzaffarpur.
The PDS licence bearing Licence No. 06-GHT-01/08 was
cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur vide order
dated 28.09.2013. Aggrieved by the said cancellation, the
appellant preferred a statutory appeal before the Collector-cum-
District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, which was dismissed vide
order dated 07.07.2020. Thereafter, the revision filed before the
Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur was also dismissed
vide order dated 02.08.2021/10.02.2022. Challenging the
aforesaid orders, the appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 5511 of 2023,
which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide
order dated 27.04.2023.
4. In the said writ application, the appellant had
sought the following reliefs:
“For issuance of an appropriate
writ/order/direction, after setting aside the
order dated 02.08.2021/10.02.2022 passed in
PDS Revision Case No. 90 of 2020, passed
by the Commissioner, Tirhut, Muzaffarpur,
Respondent No. 2 and the order dated
07.07.2020, passed in Supply Appeal Case
No. 18 of 2016-17 passed by The Collector-
cum-District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur,
Respondent No. 3 and also setting aside the
order issued under Memo No. 646/Aa dated
28.09.2013, passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Muzaffarpur, Respondent No. 5,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.803 of 2023(6) dt.02-02-2026
3/7
whereby and whereunder the license of PDS
Shop having License No. 06-GHT-01/08 of
the petitioner has been cancelled and
affirmed by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 2
respectively in appeal and Revision filed by
the petitioner on erroneous consideration of
fact and law and for grant of any other
suitable relief/reliefs for which the petitioner
is found entitle in the eye of law.”
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Single Judge failed to consider that the orders passed by
the respondent authorities are arbitrary and passed without due
application of mind. It is submitted that the settled legal position
governing cancellation of PDS licenses were not considered and
that the action of the respondent authorities is in violation of the
principles of natural justice as well as Articles 14 and 15 of the
Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the learned
Single Judge failed to take into consideration that the PDS shop
of the appellant has not been allotted to any other person till
date and has merely been tagged with another shop situated at a
distant place, thereby causing inconvenience to the local
beneficiaries of the area.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that there is no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the
impugned judgment. It is further submitted that the orders
passed by the statutory authorities are lawful, justified, and in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.803 of 2023(6) dt.02-02-2026
4/7
accordance with the provisions governing PDS licences.
7. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the
submissions advanced by the parties and upon perusal of the
materials available on record, declined to interfere with the
orders passed by the statutory authorities and, inter alia,
observed as under:
“4. I have considered the submission, the
licence was cancelled way back in 2013
and almost nine and half years have gone
by. No purpose would be served in restoring
licence after such a long period. That apart,
this Court also finds that all the fact finding
authorities namely the Appellate Authority
as well as the Revisional Authority have not
accepted the version put up by the
petitioner and complaints were recorded of
the consumers, which have been made as a
basis for cancellation of licence. No fault
can be found in the orders passed by the
Appellate Authority as well as the
Revisional Authority.”
8. The limited question that arises for consideration
before this Court is whether the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge suffers from any illegality, infirmity, or perversity,
warranting interference in intra- court appellate jurisdiction.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.803 of 2023(6) dt.02-02-2026
5/7
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the
rival submissions and have carefully examined the materials
available the record. At the outset, it is well settled that the
scope of interference in a Letters Patent Appeal is limited and
cannot be wider than the scope of the writ petition itself. The
Appellate Court, while exercising intra-court appellate
jurisdiction, does not ordinarily re-appreciate evidence or
interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless such findings
are shown to be perverse, arbitrary or suffering from patent
illegality.
10. In the present case, the licence of the appellant
was cancelled in the year 2013. The order of cancellation was
examined by the statutory Appellate Authority as well as the
Revisional Authority, both of whom recorded concurrent
findings against the appellant. The competent authorities did not
accept the explanation offered by the appellant and found that
complaints made by the consumers constituted sufficient
grounds for cancellation of the license.
11. The learned Single Judge, while exercising writ
jurisdiction, has rightly declined to interfere with the concurrent
findings recorded by the statutory authorities. We find no error
in the observation of the learned Single Judge that, after a lapse
Patna High Court L.P.A No.803 of 2023(6) dt.02-02-2026
6/7
of nearly nine and a half years, no useful purpose would be
served in restoring the licence.
12. The submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellant before this Court do not point out any infirmity,
illegality or perversity either in the orders passed by the
statutory authorities or in the judgment rendered by the learned
Single Judge. Mere reiteration of the grounds urged before the
writ court cannot be a ground for interference in an intra-court
appeal.
13. Upon an overall consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case and the legal position governing the
matter, this Court finds that the appellant has failed to make out
any case warranting interference with the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge.
14. Accordingly, the question framed is answered in
the negative, and this Court is of the view that the impugned
judgment does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or
perversity.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and
considering the limited scope of interference in a Letters Patent
Appeal, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal
is devoid of merit.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.803 of 2023(6) dt.02-02-2026
7/7
16. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands
dismissed.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
U.K./-
U T
Checking your session…