Sabit Lal Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC9 Jan 2025CWJC/13095/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PDS licence cancellation; show-cause notice without proposal for cancellation; order 27(ii)/Rule 27(ii), Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016; natural justice/validity of notice; Full Bench CWJC No. 21202 of 2021 (decided 26.09.2023); certiorari; quashing of SDO and DM orders and remand for fresh show-cause notice; Patna High Court; CWJC No.13095 of 2023; A. Abhishek Reddy, J.; decided 09-01-2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 18.12.2018 of the District Magistrate-cum-District Collector, Madhepura and order dated 24.10.2016 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhepura set aside; matter remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer for a fresh show-cause notice under Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016, opportunity of hearing, and a reasoned order, preferably within eight weeks. ¶¶40

Sabit Lal Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether a show-cause notice issued under order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, without mentioning the proposal for cancellation of the PDS licence, is a valid notice. +1 more

¶¶24

Court's answer

The show-cause notice issued to the petitioner did not reveal any proposal of the action sought to be taken against him; it is therefore bad, illegal and contrary to Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order and has to be set aside.

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 18.12.2018 of the District Magistrate-cum-District Collector, Madhepura, and the order dated 24.10.2016 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhepura, are set aside.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

The matter is remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer to issue a fresh show-cause notice strictly in compliance with Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 and call for the petitioner's explanation with reasonable time; on receipt of the explanation a reasoned order shall be passed in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing.ratio¶¶37
The entire exercise (fresh notice, explanation, reasoned order after hearing) shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and any order passed shall be communicated to the petitioner.ratio¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (A. Abhishek Reddy, J.) allowed a Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case challenging cancellation of a public distribution system licence. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhepura had cancelled the petitioner's P.D.S. Licence No. 09/2010 by order bearing Memo No. 416 dated 24.10.2016, and the District Magistrate-cum-District Collector, Madhepura affirmed that order in P.D.S. License Appeal No. 03/2017 by order dated 18.12.2018. Following the Full Bench decision of the same Court in CWJC No. 21202 of 2021 and analogous cases (dated 26.09.2023), which held it mandatory for a licensing authority issuing a notice under order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 to mention the proposal for cancellation of the licence, the Court found that the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner contained no such proposal and was bad, illegal and contrary to Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order. Both orders were set aside and the matter remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer for a fresh show-cause notice, the petitioner's explanation, an opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order, the entire exercise to be completed preferably within eight weeks.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13095 of 2023

¶2

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

¶3

Sabit Lal Yadav S/o Late Chhotelal Yadav, R/o Village-Khopaiti, Tuniyahi, Ward No. 13, P.S.-Madhepura, Distt-Madhepura.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary Food and Civil Supply Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Commissioner, Koshi Commissionery Saharsa.

¶8

The District Magistrate-cum-District Collector, Madhepura.

¶9

The District Supply Officer, Madhepura.

¶10

The Sub-Divisional Officer Madhepura, Distt-Madhepura.

¶11

That Block Supply Officer Madhepura, Distt-Madhepura.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

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

¶14

Appearance :

¶15

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate. Ms. Diksha Kumari, Advocate. Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal ( SC 4 )

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

4 09-01-2025 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶20

2 . This writ petition has been filed for seeking the

¶21

following relief(s)

¶22

“….for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the learned District Magistrate-cum-District Collector Madhepura in P.D.S. License Appeal No. 03/2017 whereby and whereunder he has affirmed the order bearing Memo No. 416 dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Madhepura by which order he has cancelled P.D.S. License of petitioner bearing No. 09/2010 without considering the material available on the record of the case and further be pleased to quash the order bearing memo No. 416 dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Madhepura and further for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to restore the P.D.S. License No. 09/2010 of the petitioner.”

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.13095 of 2023(4) dt.09-01-2025 2/4

¶24

3 . 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’).

¶25

4 . 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.

¶26

5. 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.

¶27

6 . Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition and stated that the present writ petition is not

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.13095 of 2023(4) dt.09-01-2025 3/4

¶29

maintainable as the petitioner has exhausted all the remedies and all the authorities have found that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Control Order, 2016. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶30

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

8 . 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

9 . 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 dated 18.12.2018 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-District Collector, Madhepura and the order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhepura are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.13095 of 2023(4) dt.09-01-2025 4/4

¶37

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

10 . 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

11. 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

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

¶41

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)

¶42

shakir/- U

Sabit Lal Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabit Lal 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

Chandravir Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Kedar Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Shobha Prasad Vs The Bank of India

Umesh Kumar Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Dhruv Das Vs The State of Bihar

Rehanam Constructions (P) Ltd. Vs The State of Bihar