Kapildeo Prasad @ Kapil Prasad Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1048 of 2025

======================================================

Kapildeo Prasad @ Kapil Prasad Yadav Son of Nandlal Prasad @ Tulsi Yadav Resident of Village- Mahabigha,Village Panchayat-Utli Bara, Police StationWazirganj, District- Gaya.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar at Patna.

¶7

The District Magistrate, Gaya.

¶8

The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya.

¶9

The Senior Deputy Collector, Gaya.

¶10

The Block Supply Officer, Tankuppa, Dist.-Gaya.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

======================================================

¶13

Appearance :

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (07)

¶15

======================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER

¶17

3 01-07-2025 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶18

This writ petition has been filed for seeking the

¶19

following relief(s);

¶20

“That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions to quash the order dated 27.11.2024 contained in Memo No. 693 passed by the Licensing Authority um Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya, whereby the license no. 11/2016 (wrongly mentioned 08/2009) of the petitioner granted under the Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2016 has capriciously been cancelled and for direction upon the respondent no.3 to continue allocation to the Public Distribution System Shop of the petitioner after declaring the cancellation order null and void and/or pass such other order(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.1048 of 2025(3) dt.01-07-2025 2/4

¶22

under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶23

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that in the Show Cause Notice issued by the 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’).

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.1048 of 2025(3) dt.01-07-2025 3/4

¶28

maintainability of the writ petition and stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under the provisions of the Control Order, 2016. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶29

This Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.21202 of 2021

¶30

and analogous cases has held as under:

¶31

“19. Accordingly, we answer the reference as under:-

¶32

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. ”

¶33

A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.1048 of 2025(3) dt.01-07-2025 4/4

¶37

Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya dated 27.11.2024 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for 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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶41

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)

¶42

ajay/- U

Kapildeo Prasad @ Kapil Prasad Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapildeo Prasad @ Kapil Prasad Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Avantika Contractors (I) Ltd. Vs The State of Bihar

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Surendra Yadav @ Surendra Prasad Yadav @ Surendra Prasad Yadaw Vs The State of Bihar

Deepak Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary @ Pradeep Chaudhary alias Pradeep Jaiswal Vs The State of Bihar

Suresh Mahto Vs The State of Bihar