Lalan Ram Vs The State of Bihar

“(i) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Revisional Order dated 02.01.2024 passed in B.T. PDS Control Revision No. 131/2023 by the learned Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna by which he was pleased to dismiss the statutory revision filed on behalf of the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 04.02.2023 passed by the learned Collector, Patna.

¶20

(ii) Further for quashing the

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.8332 of 2024(11) dt.11-09-2025 2/10

¶22

order dated 04.02.2023 passed in E.C. Appeal Case No. 07/2022-23 passed by the learned Collector Patna by which the Statutory appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed and order of licensing authority cancelling PDS License dated 05.04.2021 was affirmed.

¶23

(iii) For quashing the order contained in Memo No. 417/Aa dated 05.04.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Danapur-cum-licensing Authority by which he was pleased to cancel the PDS License of the petitioner being license No. 02/2017.

¶24

(iv) Further for issuance appropriate writ/order/direction for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case and/or the license of the petitioner be restored.”

¶25

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted the PDS license in the year 2017 and the petitioner has been supplying the necessary food-grains to the beneficiaries attached to his shop without any complaint. That on 22.01.2021, the Block Supply Officer has inspected the shop of the petitioner and, thereafter, basing on the enquiry report submitted by him to the Sub-Divisional Officer a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer vide letter dated 10.02.2021 bearing Memo No. 185 has issued the show-cause

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.8332 of 2024(11) dt.11-09-2025 3/10

¶27

notice alleging as under:-

¶28

1- tk¡p ds nkSjku nqdku can ik;k x;k ,oa lwpuk iV~ ij dksbZ lwpuk vafdr ugha FkkA

¶29

2- ckj&ckj nqjHkk’k ij iwoZ esa funsZ”k fn;s tkus ds ckotwn cps gq, ekg fnlEcj 20 ,oa tuojh 21 ds vo”ks’k [kk|kUu dk forj.k foØsrk }kjk ugh fd;k x;k rFkk nqdku can dj vkns”k ds vogsyuk fd;k x;kA

¶30

3- foØsrk dk O;ogkj ykHkqdksa ds izfr lgh ugha jgrk gSA

¶31

4- foØsrk dk nqdku orZeku txg ij lapkfyr gks jgk gS og txg O;kikj LFky ls vyx gS ,oa 2 o’kksZ ls viuk O;kikj LFky cny fn;s gSA rFkk foØsrk vius euekus rjhds ls nqdku lapkfyr djrs gSA

¶32

Though the petitioner has submitted his detailed

¶33

reply to the said show cause notice answering each and every allegation made against him, the authority without taking the same into consideration has passed the order of cancellation of the PDS license issued in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner aggrieved by the order of cancellation dated 05.04.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer has preferred a statutory appeal before the District Magistrate. That the District Magistrate vide order dated 04.02.2023 has also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner upholding the order of cancellation without adverting to the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner. That the petitioner, thereafter, has again filed

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.8332 of 2024(11) dt.11-09-2025 4/10

¶35

statutory revision before the Divisional Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 02.01.2024 has dismissed the revision upholding the order of the District Magistrate dated 04.02.2023 passed in the E.C. Appeal Case No. 07/2022-23 and also the order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 05.04.2021 passed in Memo No. 417/Aa. Learned counsel submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer has not furnished the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and a specific stand has been taken in the writ petition by the petitioner and the same has not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. Further, learned counsel submits that merely because the shop was closed on a particular day, the same cannot be made the basis for cancellation of licence. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in case of Turant Lal Paswan Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2012 (3) PLJR 583 wherein it was held that the license cannot be cancelled solely on the ground that the shop was closed on a particular day. Further learned counsel submits in so far as the second allegation is made, the petitioner has given a suitable reply submitting that he has supplied the food-grains to the beneficiaries on 22.01.2021 and there is no complaint from any beneficiaries that they have not received the good-grains,

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.8332 of 2024(11) dt.11-09-2025 5/10

¶37

however, the same was not believed by the authority. That in so far as the third allegation against the petitioner that his behaviour is not proper, the petitioner submits that the SubDivisional Officer while issuing the show-cause notice to the petitioner has not given the list of the names of the beneficiaries who have made the complaint and also the copy of the statements given by them. That in so far as the fourth allegation is concerned, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has made representations for change of place of business for 24.11.2018 and 17.07.2020 but the authority did not pass any orders on the same. Therefore, left with no other option, the petitioner had to necessarily shift his place of business. Learned counsel submits that all the authorities have not taken into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice and passed the order of cancellation, the order of appeal, and the order of the revision in a pedantic and mechanical manner. Learned counsel submits that the authority without taking into consideration the fact that the allegations against the petitioner are very minor in nature have passed the order of cancellation effecting the very livelihood of the petitioner. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed this Court to set aside the impugned orders and restore the license in favour of the

¶38

Patna High Court CWJC No.8332 of 2024(11) dt.11-09-2025 6/10

¶39

petitioner.

¶40

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has remedy of filing a representation before the Principal Secretary under Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 that the petitioner without availing the same has filed the present writ petition. Further, learned counsel submits that the petitioner without informing the authorities and taking prior permission has closed the shop on the date of the inspection. That the petitioner has not been supplying the food-grains to the beneficiaries within time. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has shifted the place of business without taking a written permission from the authority. Learned counsel further states that even if the petitioner has made any application for change of place of business and has not received any written order from the licensing authority, he is obligated to take permission from the district officer. That the petitioner in this particular case has not done so. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶41

A perusal of the impugned orders passed by the

¶42

Patna High Court CWJC No.8332 of 2024(11) dt.11-09-2025 7/10

¶43

Sub-Divisional Officer, the District Magistrate, the appellate authority and that of the Divisional Commissioner who is revisional authority reveal that the main allegations against the petitioner are that the shop was closed on the date of inspection, that the petitioner has not supplied the food-grains to the beneficiaries for the month of December, 2020 and month of January, 2021 within time. Further, it is alleged that the behavior of the petitioner is not proper towards the beneficiaries. Thereafter, the other allegation is that the petitioner without taking necessary permission from the respondent-authorities as stipulated under Rule 17 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 has shifted his place of business. That in so far as the first allegation is concerned, this Court in the case of Turant Lal Paswan Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2012 (3) PLJR 583 has held that the authority cannot pass the order of cancellation solely on the ground that the shop is closed on a single day. That in so far the second allegation is concerned that the petitioner has not supplied the food-grains for the month of December, 2020 and also for the month of January, 2021 as on the date of inspection is concerned, it is to be noted that there is no stipulation of any time limit in the control order which stipulates that the food-

¶44

Patna High Court CWJC No.8332 of 2024(11) dt.11-09-2025 8/10

¶45

grains which are lifted by the petitioner have to be given to the beneficiaries within a particular time. Moreover, it is to be noted that the petitioner has taken a specific stand in his explanation that he has supplied the beneficiaries the required food-grains for the month of January, 2021 on 22.01.2021 and has also filed the receipts, the authority has not considered the same. That in so far as the third allegation is concerned, that the petitioner is not behaving properly with the beneficiaries is concerned, the show cause notice does not contain the names of the beneficiaries who have made the complaint nor the copy of the statement made by the said beneficiaries has been enclosed to the said show-cause notice. Therefore, the cancellation of the PDS licence has to be held as illegal, bad and arbitrary. That in so far as the fourth allegation that the petitioner has shifted his place of businesses is concerned, it is to be noted that the petitioner has made applications on 24.11.2018 and 17.07.2020 to the concerned officer for shifting of the shop but the same have not been acted upon. Rule 17 makes it specific that the authority shall take a decision either accepting or rejecting the said application within a period of fifteen days. The reasons give by the Division Commissioner that even if the petitioner has not received any intimation from the licensing authority with regard

¶46

Patna High Court CWJC No.8332 of 2024(11) dt.11-09-2025 9/10

¶47

to his application for shifting the place of business is concerned but the petitioner is obligated to take necessary permission from the district officer is concerned, is also not proper and without any legal basis, the authorities cannot sit over an application for years together and expect the petitioner to run around them for the permission to shift the shop. Moreover, none of the beneficiaries have made any complaint with regard to the shifting of the shop nor any complaint has being received stating that the beneficiaries are facing hardship due to shifting. This Court is of the opinion that cancellation of the PDS licence on the above allegations most of which are not substantiated is too harsh and was not necessary.

¶48

Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the revisional authority, the order dated 04.02.2023 passed by the appellate authority as well as the order dated 05.04.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer are all set aside. The SubDivisional Officer is directed to restore the license of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. In future, the authority feels that the petitioner has violated any of the provisions of the Bihar Targeted Public

¶49

Patna High Court CWJC No.8332 of 2024(11) dt.11-09-2025 10/10

¶50

Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, they are free to take necessary action strictly in accordance with law.

¶51