Raj Kumar Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (22) : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, AC to GP22 ======================================================

¶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, Bakhari and issued vide Memo No. 1667 dated 21/11/2024 whereby and where under license of the petitioner’s PDS shop bearing license No. 48/2016 FPS ID 122200100124 has been cancelled with immediate effect contained in Annexure-1. B. A mandamus commanding the Respondents to restore the petitioner’s license and to make allotment for the same as before.

¶17

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

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.41 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2025 2/4

¶19

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’).

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.41 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2025 3/4

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

and analogous cases has held as under:

¶27

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

¶28

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. ”

¶29

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.

¶30

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 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bakhari dated 21.11.2024 is set aside. The matter is

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.41 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2025 4/4

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)

¶37

Ayush/-

¶38

U

Raj Kumar Paswan v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Paswan 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

Bhola Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Ashok Kumar Verma Vs The State of Bihar

Chandraket Singh Vs The State of Bihar