PDS dealer challenged cancellation of his licence where the show-cause notice neither enclosed the enquiry report nor mentioned a proposal for cancellation under order 27(ii). Relying on prior Patna High Court decisions, the court quashed the cancellation and appellate orders and remanded for a fresh compliant show-cause notice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17880 of 2023
======================================================
Sambhu Ram Son of Mahavir Ram, Resident of Village-Khilwat, P.S.Bidupur, Block- Bidupur, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
... ... Respondents
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad ( Aag 5 ) ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER
2 03-04-2025 Heard the parties.
(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorary for quashing the Order dated 22.07.2023 passed in Supply Appeal No. 294 of 2017-2018 by District Magistrate, Vaishali, dismissing the appeal which was filed after order dated 23.03.2012 of Sub Divisional Officer, Hajipur by which PDS license No. 66 of 2007 of the petitioner was cancelled are liable to be set aside as same have been passed in violation of the principles of Natural Justice, in as much as the Impugned
Patna High Court CWJC No. 17880 of 2023(2) dt.03-04-2025 2/7
Orders have been passed without considering the show cause filed by the petitioner.
(ii) For holding and declaring that Order dated 22.07.2023 passed in Supply Appeal No. 294 of 2017-2018 by District Magistrate, Vaishali, is liable to be set aside as same has been passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice, in as much as the Impugned Order has been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii) For issuance of any other relief(s) for which the petitioner is entitled for.
Patna High Court CWJC No. 17880 of 2023(2) dt.03-04-2025 3/7
11.03.2015 wherein this Hon’ble Court has held that the nonsupply of the enquiry report along with the show-cause is bad and against the principle of natural justice and equity.
Patna High Court CWJC No. 17880 of 2023(2) dt.03-04-2025 4/7
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 a revision before the Commissioner. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
11.03.2015 held as under:
"In my opinion, irregularities in maintenance of notice board or maintenance of the stocks within the premises of the petitioner are too trivial and cannot form a basis for cancellation of licence. No doubt there were other serious charges against the petitioner regarding non-issuance of cash-memo to the consumers, distribution of lesser amount of kerosene oil and non-distribution of food- grains but surprisingly even while making such allegations, the names of such consumers who are dissatisfied by such action of the petitioner are conspicuously missing. The allegations are sweeping in nature without reference to any specific consumer.
In my opinion the non-supply of the enquiry report conducted by the District Level Committee which is the foundation for issuance of show cause notice placed at Annexure-1 as well as non-supply of names of such of the consumers who had complained against the petitioner as regarding the irregularities in distribution of the food-grains or the kerosene oil has prejudiced the petitioner to file his purposeful reply and in absence thereof, the order impugned in my opinion, are based on no materials.
Patna High Court CWJC No. 17880 of 2023(2) dt.03-04-2025 5/7
Though it was strenuously argued by Mr. Pandey that in absence of any response by the petitioner the allegations would be deemed to have been admitted but in my opinion even if the show cause reply was missing, the orders passed by the statutory authorities having civil consequences and resulting in cancellation should reflect application of mind. Unfortunately it is grossly missing inasmuch as neither the order of the Licensing Authority nor the order of the appellate authority deal with the materials which formed the basis to drive home the charges. The orders impugned are indefensible and cannot be upheld."
of 2021 and analogous cases has held as under:
“19. Accordingly, we answer the reference as under:-
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.”
Patna High Court CWJC No. 17880 of 2023(2) dt.03-04-2025 6/7
present CWJC is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.07.2023 passed by the appellate authority and the order dated 23.03.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer (Respondent No. 4) 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 also furnish a copy of the enquiry report along with the Show Cause Notice to the petitioner and call for his explanation by giving reasonable time.
Patna High Court CWJC No. 17880 of 2023(2) dt.03-04-2025 7/7
allowed to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Shahnawaz/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether show-cause notice without enclosing enquiry report and without mentioning proposed cancellation violates order 27(ii) and natural justice.
Whether impugned appellate order dismissing the appeal mechanically should be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sambhu Ram
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department
Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur
District Magistrate, Vaishali
Sub Divisional Officer, Hajipur, Vaishali
Block Supply Officer, Bidupur, Vaishali
A. Abhishek Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
