Allowed¶31

Bhola Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC27 Jan 2025CWJC/301/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PDS licence cancellation; show-cause notice lacking proposal for cancellation; order 27(ii)/Rule 27(ii) Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016; Full Bench CWJC No.21202 of 2021 dated 26.09.2023; certiorari and mandamus; adequate opportunity/natural justice; invalid notice; remand for fresh show-cause notice and reasoned order; eight-week timeline; alternative remedy of appeal objection; Sub-Divisional Officer Barh; Memo No. 842; licence No. 360/2016; Patna High Court CWJC.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned cancellation order dated 24.12.2024 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh set aside; matter remanded for a fresh show-cause notice compliant with Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016, explanation, opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order, the exercise to be completed preferably within eight weeks.

Bhola Prasad Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner, containing no proposal for cancellation of his PDS licence, complies with order 27(ii)/Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and whether the cancellation order founded on it is valid. +1 more

¶20

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 had to be set aside.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The impugned cancellation order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh is set aside and the matter is remanded to him for issuing a fresh show-cause notice in compliance with Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016, calling for the petitioner's explanation with reasonable time.

¶31

Key takeaways

On the fresh show-cause notice being served, the petitioner shall file his explanation within the stipulated time and the authority shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law; before any order the petitioner shall be heard, and the entire exercise shall be completed preferably within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (A. Abhishek Reddy, J.), CWJC No. 301 of 2025, decided 27-01-2025: A PDS licensee's shop licence No. 360/2016 was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh vide Memo No. 842 dated 24/12/2024 pursuant to a show-cause notice that nowhere disclosed a proposal for cancellation. Applying the Full Bench ruling in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases (dated 26.09.2023) that a notice under order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 must mention the proposal for cancellation, the Court held the notice bad, illegal and contrary to Rule 27(ii), set aside the cancellation order, and remanded the matter for a fresh show-cause notice, the licensee's explanation, an opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order, to be completed preferably within eight weeks. The respondents' objection of an alternative appellate remedy did not prevent adjudication on merits.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 301 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Bhola Prasad Son of Bhaso Prasad, Resident of Village-Sitarambagi Ward no. 6, P.S.- Pandarak, District- Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Patna.

¶8

The Block Supply Officer, Pandarak, District-Patna.

¶9

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh, District-Patna.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate (2) : Mr. Venkatesh Kirti, AC to GA2 ======================================================

¶12

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

¶13

2 27-01-2025 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶14

2 . This writ petition has been filed for seeking the

¶15

following relief(s)

¶16

“A. A certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh and issued vide Memo No. 842 dated 24/12/2024 whereby and where under license of the petitioner’s PDS shop bearing license No. 360/2016 has been cancelled with immediate effect contained in Annexure-1.

¶17

B. A mandamus commanding the Respondents to restore the petitioner’s license and to make allotment for the same as before.

¶18

C. Any other relief or reliefs for which petitioner may be found entitled in the fact and circumstances of the present case may be granted to him.”

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No. 301 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2025 2/4

¶20

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’).

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No. 301 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2025 3/4

¶25

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 appeal. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶26

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

¶27

and analogous cases has held as under:

¶28

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

¶29

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. ”

¶30

8 . A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the 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.

¶31

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 passed Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh dated 24.12.2024 is set aside. The matter is remanded back

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No. 301 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2025 4/4

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)

¶38

Ayush/-

¶39

Bhola Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Prasad 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

Suman Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Chandra Bhushan Pathak Vs The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India

Sarvashree Shivshakti Engineering Works Vs The State of Bihar

Ashok Kumar Verma Vs The State of Bihar

Chandraket Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Raj Kumar Paswan Vs The State of Bihar