Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11769 of 2019

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

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Son of Late Ram Jatan Sharma Resident of-Chapra Megh, P.S.-Mushari, District-Muzaffarpur, Chairman Chapra Megh Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society, Muzaffarpur.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

¶8

¶9

The Collector, Muzaffarpur.

¶10

The Sub Divisional Officer, (East), Muzaffarpur.

¶11

The Block Supply Officer, Mushari.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

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

¶14

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : M/s N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Kumar Rajdeep, Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Advocates For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad AAG 5

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 10-07-2026

¶18

The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:

¶19

“ For setting aside the order dated 15.12.2015 contained in memo no. 1005 dated 17.12.2015 by which the PDS license of 17 the petitioner being license No. 06-MUS-01-10 has been cancelled by the learned S.D.O. (East), Muzaffarpur and further for quashing the order dated 10.10.2017 passed in Supply Appeal Case No. 04/2016-17 by the learned Collector, Muzaffarpur by which he was pleased to

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.11769 of 2019 dt.10-07-2026 2/6

¶21

dismissed the appeal and further for quashing the order dated 08.01.2019 passed in PDS Revision Case No. 42 of 2018 by the learned Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur by which he was pleased to dismissed the Revision and further be pleased to restore the license and supply of the petitioner.

¶22

The brief facts culled out of the petition are that the petitioner’s PDS license (No. 06-MUS-01-10) was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, (East) Muzaffarpur, without supplying the enquiry report or considering the show-cause reply filed by the petitioner. The cancellation was based on vague allegations that are not sustainable in the eyes of the law. Both the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority upheld the cancellation order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer without considering the pleas or submissions raised by the petitioner.

¶23

At this juncture, the Learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.K.Agarwal, appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the order passed in CWJC No. 253 of 2014

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.11769 of 2019 dt.10-07-2026 3/6

¶25

(Raghuvir Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar &

¶26

Ors.) . The Learned Senior Counsel contends that this matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Raghuvir Prasad (supra) . Therefore, it is prayed that this Writ petition may be disposed of on the same terms and conditions.

¶27

The Learned Counsel for the respondents, agreeing with the judgment passed by this Court in Raghuvir Prasad (supra) and submits that this matter may be disposed of on the same terms and conditions as outlined in the aforesaid judgment.

¶28

Heard the Learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the Leaned counsel for the State.

¶29

In Raghuvir Prasad (supra) this Court has held as follows:

¶30

“In my opinion the nonsupply of the enquiry report conducted by the District Level Committee which is the foundation for issuance of show cause notice placed

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.11769 of 2019 dt.10-07-2026 4/6

¶32

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.

¶33

Though it was streneously 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.”

¶34

In result, the Writ petition

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.11769 of 2019 dt.10-07-2026 5/6

¶36

is allowed and the order passed by the Licensing Authority as contained in Annexure-3 along with the order of the appellate authority placed at Annexure-4 are set aside. The licence of the petitioner stands restored.

¶37

This order would, however, not preclude the respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove.”

¶38

In view of the fact that this matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, the Writ application is allowed, in light of the judgment passed in Raghuvir Prasad (supra), and the impugned orders dated 17.12.2015 (Annexure-3), 10.10.2017 (Annexure-4) and 08.01.2018 (Annexure-5) are, hereby, quashed.

¶39

This order, however, shall not preclude the respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove.

¶40

Interlocutory Application(s), if any,

¶41

Patna High Court CWJC No.11769 of 2019 dt.10-07-2026 6/6

¶42

shall stand disposed of.

¶43

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)

¶44

Spd/-

¶45

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	13.07.2026
Transmission Date

Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Sharma 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhay Kumar Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Swarup Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Priyanka Bharti Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rasalpura Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society, Nandsena, Meskaour, Nalanda Vs The State of Bihar

Asharfi Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Nath Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.