Patna High Court
Vijay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed and the order of the Single Judge restoring the PDS licence is affirmed.
Summary
The appellant, Vijay Kumar, complained that the private respondent Upendra Kumar had concealed his identity and held multiple names, leading the Divisional Commissioner to cancel his PDS shop licence in 2023. The respondent filed a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the cancellation, holding that the Additional Sub‑Divisional Officer's report verified the respondent's documents and that no material evidence of fraud was presented. On appeal, the appellant argued that the licence should remain cancelled on the basis of the pending criminal case and alleged forgery. The appellate court observed that the appellant failed to produce any documentary proof of a second identity and that the writ court should not adjudicate disputed facts. It affirmed the Single Judge's order restoring the licence, noting no illegality or perversity in the lower court's decision. The pending criminal case was directed to proceed independently.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of the PDS licence on the ground of alleged multiple identities was legally justified.
- Whether the writ court should interfere with the factual findings of the administrative authority regarding the respondent's identity.
- Whether the existence of a pending criminal case alone warrants cancellation of the licence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- PDS licence
- identity fraud
- Writ jurisdiction
- Article 226
- Administrative law
- Cancellation of licence
- Criminal case
- Fact‑finding
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.970 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4506 of 2024
======================================================
Vijay Kumar Son of Dinnanath Ram Resident of village Varuna Khurd, P.O.-
Basudhar, P.S.- Itarhi, District- Buxar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, Bihar
3. The District Magistrate, Buxar
4. The District Supply Officer, Buxar
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Buxar
6. The Block Development Officer, Itarhi, Buxar
7. The Block Supply Officer, Itarhi, Buxar
8. Upendra Kumar Son of Gudari Ram Resident of Village Varuna, P.O.-
Basudhar, P.S.- Itarhi, District- Buxar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Udbhav, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Yadav, AAG-9
Mr. Anil Kr. Verma, AC to AAG-9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
5 26-02-2026 The present intra court appeal has been filed against
the judgment and order dated 20.08.2024 passed in CWJC No.
4506 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the
writ application, and set aside the orders wherein the PDS
license of the private respondent (Respondent No. 8) was
cancelled.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.970 of 2024(5) dt.26-02-2026
2/8
private respondent in the year 2018 was selected as a PDS
license dealer by the District Level Selection Committee, and
was running his shop. Upon a complaint made by the appellant,
the Sub-Divisional Public Grievance Officer, Buxar, made
extensive inquiries, and found that the petitioner had concealed
facts and did not disclose true information regarding his identity.
It was alleged that the private respondent had appeared in
Matriculation examination twice, with different names, and he
had two Voter ID cards with these names. Further a criminal
case was instituted against the petitioner on the basis of such
allegations.
3. Considering the allegations and the pending
criminal case, the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated
05.10.2023 cancelled the PDS license given to the private
respondent. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred the impugned
writ application, which came to be allowed. The present appeal
has been filed against the said order passed in impugned writ
application.
4. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ
petition held that the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer Buxar,
vide his report dated 04.01.2021 had verified the claims of the
private respondent, and found his certificate and documents to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.970 of 2024(5) dt.26-02-2026
3/8
be genuine. The learned Single Judge further held that the
Divisional Commissioner in its order dated 05.10.2023, did not
refer to the said report, and only on the basis of pending
criminal cases proceeded to cancel the PDS license of the
private respondent. The learned Single Judge further relied upon
the documents submitted by the private respondent which
established the identity of private respondent as ‘Upendra
Kumar’ only, and not by any other name. The relevant
paragraphs of the impugned judgment are reproduced as under:
6. Admittedly, as seen from the record, the Additional
Sub-Divisional Officer, Buxar dated 04.01.2021 has
verified the documents filed by the petitioner and also
the documents filed by the respondent No. 8 and came
to the conclusion that the documents issued in favour of
the petitioner were found to be genuine and the
petitioner is known only by the name of Upendra
Kumar and, moreover, it was further held in the report
that the alleged application made in the name of
Pankaj Kumar Kamal to the post of Vikas Mitra is
suspicious one. However, the Divisional Commissioner,
Patna while passing the order impugned in the present
writ petition has not adverted to the said report and
has passed the order in a mechanical manner solely
based on the fact that a police complaint has been
registered in the name of the petitioner.
7. This Court, vide order dated 14.05.2024, has
directed the petitioner to file all the relevant documents
to substantiate that the petitioner is known only by the
name of Upendra Kumar. Pursuant to the said order,
the petitioner has filed a rejoinder along with the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.970 of 2024(5) dt.26-02-2026
4/8
relevant documents.
8. A perusal of the documents (Annexure-P/9
series of the rejoinder) reads as follows;
1. Photocopy of Admit Card, 2000 issued by
the Bihar School Examination Board.
2. Photocopy of Marks Sheet, 2000 of Bihar
School Examination Board, Patna.
3. Photocopy of Certificate dated 24.10.2000
of Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
4. Photocopy of School Leaving Certificate
dated 18.07.2000.
5. Photocopy of Admit Card, 2002 issued by
the Bihar Intermediate Education Council,
Patna.
6. Photocopy of Marks Statement dated
17.06.2002 of Bihar Intermediate Education
Council, Patna.
7. Photocopy of Certificate dated 15.10.2002
of Bihar Intermediate Education Council,
Patna.
8. Photocopy of Admit Cards for Bachelor of
Arts of Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara.
9. Photocopy of Mark Sheet dated 15.11.2005
of Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara.
10. Photocopy of Provisional Certificate
dated 19.08.2023 for Bachelor of Arts of Veer
Kunwar Singh University, Ara.
11. Photocopy of Admit Card for Master of
Arts of Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara.
12. Photocopy of Marks Sheet dated
27.08.2007 for Master of Arts of Veer
Kunwar Singh University, Ara.
13. Photocopy of Provisional Certificate
dated 19.08.2023 for Master of Arts of Veer
Kunwar Singh University, Ara.
14. Photocopy of Marks Sheet dated
28.07.2013 for Bachelor of Physical
Education.
15. Photocopy of the Result Card dated
03.10.2023 of Bihar School Examination
Board for Secondary Teacher Eligibility Test,
2023.
16. Photocopy of the Election Certificate
dated 22.05.2011.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.970 of 2024(5) dt.26-02-2026
5/8
9. All the above documents filed by the petitioner reveal
that the petitioner is known only by the name of
Upendra Kumar and not by any other name. It is
pertinent to note that some of the documents filed by the
petitioner pertain to the year 2000. The respondent No.
8 except filing the application obtained under the Right
to Information Act, 2005 showing that the application
has been made by the Pankaj Kumar Kamal, has not
filed any other documents to substantiate the allegation,
merely because a criminal complaint is filed and an FIR
is registered against the petitioner, the same cannot be
the basis for cancelling the license issued in favour of
the petitioner has directed the District Officer, Buxar to
cancel the license of the petitioner.”
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant had approached the concerned authorities with his
grievance that the private respondent had committed forgery,
and had multiple identities/names. On basis of such allegations,
a criminal case had also been instituted against the private
respondent. Therefore, the Divisional Commissioner had rightly
cancelled the license of the private respondent on basis of the
findings available to him. Learned counsel further submits that
in the impugned writ application, the learned Single Judge
erroneously entered into fact finding, and should have limited
itself to procedural correctness under the writ jurisdiction. The
learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge
unilaterally relied upon the documents submitted by the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.970 of 2024(5) dt.26-02-2026
6/8
petitioner, and as such the impugned judgment is fit to be set
aside.
6. Upon perusal of materials on record, it is apparent
that the respondent no. 08 (private respondent) was granted the
PDS shop license in the year 2018, after due verification of the
documents furnished by him. It is also not in dispute that the
Additional Sub-Divisional Officer Buxar, vide his report dated
04.01.2021 had verified the documents of the private
respondent, and found his certificate/documents submitted to be
genuine. As such, the claim by the appellant that the private
respondent is having multiple identities seems to be personally
motivated. The appellant has not brought any material
document/evidence on record to show that the private
respondent indeed has two names.
7. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant, who
was the original complainant against the private respondent, has
not been able to dislodge the findings recorded by the learned
Single Judge by bringing any substantive material on record.
Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that the private
respondent had obtained the PDS license by taking advantage of
any alleged second identity. The case of the appellant does not
demonstrate that the private respondent, by use of another name,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.970 of 2024(5) dt.26-02-2026
7/8
managed to secure eligibility or gain any undue advantage in the
process of grant of the PDS license. In the absence of any
element of misrepresentation or fraud that could have influenced
the decision of the authorities in granting the license, the mere
assertion that the private respondent may be known by more
than one name does not, by itself, invalidate the grant of the
PDS license.
8. It is a well-settled principle that a Writ Court, in the
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, generally refrains
from adjudicating disputed questions of fact; this principle has
been squarely applied to the present proceedings. Upon perusal
of records, it is clear that the learned Single Judge restricted the
inquiry to the limited issue of identity of the private respondent,
and the subsequent action of the authorities based on it. While
the appellant failed to produce any material evidence to
substantiate his allegations, the Private Respondent submitted
original documentation dating back to the year 2000, which
serves as conclusive proof of his identity. Additionally, the
respondent authorities have also brought no material evidence
on record to substantiate such claims. Accordingly, the claim of
the appellant that the private respondent had two different
identities cannot be sustained. As such, the action taken by the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.970 of 2024(5) dt.26-02-2026
8/8
respondent authorities against the private respondent cannot be
said to be in accordance with law.
9. In the above facts and circumstance of the case, and
considering the discussions made above we find no illegality or
perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge, and the order
is hereby affirmed.
10. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands
dismissed.
11. It is however made clear that the criminal case
pending against the private respondent (Respondent No. 8) shall
be dealt with independently based on the evidence adduced by
the parties, and any findings or observations made herein shall
not have any effect on the said criminal case.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Anushka/-
U
Checking your session…