Allowed

Bharat Prasad Gupta v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC11 Sept 2025CWJC/2804/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order quashes orders cancelling a PDS license where the show-cause notice failed to enclose the enquiry report or specify the proposal for cancellation. The court remanded the matter for issuing a fresh notice compliant with the Control Order, 2016.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders cancelled; matter remanded to Sub-divisional Officer to issue a fresh show-cause notice enclosing the enquiry report and allowing time for explanation before taking action.

Bharat Prasad Gupta Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2804 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Bharat Prasad Gupta son of Late Asharfi Sah @ Asharfi Saw, Resident of Village-Amara, P.O-Rampur, Baina, District-Jehanabad at Present Resident of Village-Amra, P.S.-Parasi, District-Arwal.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through secretary Food and Civil Supply Department Bihar.

¶7

The commissioner Magadh Division Gaya

¶8

The collector, Arwal.

¶9

The SDO, Arwal

¶10

The Block Supply officer, Arwal

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

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

¶13

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bishwa Bijay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (18) ======================================================

¶14

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

¶15

5 11-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed for the

¶17

following relief(s):-

¶18

“I. For quashing the order dated 29/10/2024 secretary passed food by and learned consumer preservation Department where by and where under the representation was dismissed on the ground that the learned commissioner magadh division, Gaya has passed a reasoned order havence interference is not required

¶19

II. For quashing 21/12/2023 the order dated-learned by passed Commissioner, Magdh Division, Gaya in Supply Appeal Case

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.2804 of 2025(5) dt.11-09-2025 2/7

¶21

No-14/2023 Where by under where and the appeal/Revision was dismissed on the ground that the learned district magistrate Arwal passed has a reasoned order hence interference is not required.

¶22

III. For quashing the order dated 7.4.2018 passed by district magistrate Arwal in Supply Appeal No-3/DM/2017 where by and where under the appeal Was dismissed on the ground that the learned S.D.O Arwal has passed a reasoned order hence interference is not required.

¶23

IV. For quashing the order dated 131-2017 passed by SDO Arwal where by and where under the PDS license no--31/2007 for carried out the business of the PDS shop in Panchayat Amra, Block-Arwal, District-Arwal was canceled on the ground that his show cause was not found satisfactory.”

¶24

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the Sub-Divisional Officer while issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner has not enclosed the enquiry report and there is no proposal for cancellation of the license in the show-cause notice.

¶25

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

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.2804 of 2025(5) dt.11-09-2025 3/7

¶27

Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Order, 2016’)

¶28

Further learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.253 of 2014 dated 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.

¶29

Learned counsel has further stated that petitioner has taken the above ground in the appeal, but the appellate authority has not dealt with the above ground and dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Full Court 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.

¶31

Learned counsel has stated in view of the above mentioned provisions of law and judgments 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,

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.2804 of 2025(5) dt.11-09-2025 4/7

¶33

2016 and also furnish a copy of the enquiry report along with the said show-cause notice and thereafter take necessary action.

¶34

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 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.

¶35

This Court in CWJC No.253 of 2014 dated 11.03.2015 held as under:

¶36

"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 foodgrains 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.

¶37

In my opinion the non-supply of the

¶38

Patna High Court CWJC No.2804 of 2025(5) dt.11-09-2025 5/7

¶39

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.

¶40

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."

¶41

Further this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.21202 of

¶42

2021 and analogous cases has held as under:

¶43

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

¶44

It is mandatory for a licensing authority issuing a notice under order 27(ii) to a

¶45

Patna High Court CWJC No.2804 of 2025(5) dt.11-09-2025 6/7

¶46

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. ”

¶47

A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner does not reveal that the copy of the enquiry report was enclosed along with the show-cause notice and that there is no proposal of the action sought to be taken against the petitioner.

¶48

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 13.01.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the impugned order dated 07.04.2018 passed by the appellate authority, the impugned order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the revisional authority and the impunged order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned secretary food and consumer preservation department 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

¶49

Patna High Court CWJC No.2804 of 2025(5) dt.11-09-2025 7/7

¶50

reasonable time.

¶51

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 orders strictly in accordance with law duly taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

¶52

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.

¶53

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

¶54

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)

¶55

Gauravkr/-

¶56

Bharat Prasad Gupta v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Prasad Gupta v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunal Kush Vs The State of Bihar

Pritee Kumari Pandit Vs The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited

Birendra Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Umesh Yadav Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary

Om Prakash Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Lalan Ram Vs The State of Bihar