Allowed¶39

Horen Ray v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC6 Jul 2026CWJC/19111/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PDS licence cancellation; delayed renewal of licence; suspension period excluded for renewal; Clause 13(ii)(c) / Rule 13(ii)(c), Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2016; renewal barred during suspension; late fees challan; certiorari and mandamus; alternative remedy of statutory appeal before District Magistrate; Katihar; S.D.O. Barsoi; restoration of licence and food-grain supply; CWJC No. 1361 of 2014 followed; CWJC No. 19458 of 2024 referred.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation order dated 27.09.2025 set aside and PDS Licence No. 01/2014 restored; authority directed to resume supply of food grains to the beneficiaries attached with the petitioner's shop and to pass necessary orders on the renewal application in light of the Court's observations, each preferably within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.

Horen Ray Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the S.D.O., Barsoi cancelling the petitioner's PDS Licence No. 01/2014 on the ground that the renewal application was filed after a delay of 17 months was sustainable, when the licence stood suspended from 13.10.2023 until its restoration and Clause 13(ii)(c) of the Control Order, 2016 forbids renewal during suspension. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

Under Clause 13(ii)(c) of the Control Order, 2016, a PDS licence cannot be renewed during the period of suspension; accordingly, the question of renewing the petitioner's licence during the suspension did not arise.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Since the licence was restored only on 09.01.2025 and the petitioner paid the challan with late fees on 28.07.2025, within the stipulated six-month period, the authority was not right in cancelling the licence on the ground that it was not renewed for 17 months.

¶35

Key takeaways

The impugned order of cancellation dated 27.09.2025 is set aside and the petitioner's licence is restored; the authority is directed to resume the supply of food grains and to pass necessary orders on the renewal application, each preferably within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (A. Abhishek Reddy, J.), by order dated 06-07-2026 in CWJC No. 19111 of 2025, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 27.09.2025 of the S.D.O., Barsoi (Case No. 03/2025) cancelling the petitioner's PDS Licence No. 01/2014 for failure to seek renewal for about 17 months. The licence had been suspended on 13.10.2023 (Memo No. 602) over E-Pos discrepancies and restored on 09.01.2025 pursuant to this Court's order dated 26.11.2024 in CWJC No. 13500 of 2024. Holding that under Clause 13(ii)(c) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2016 a licence cannot be renewed during suspension, and that the petitioner deposited the licensing-fee challan of Rs. 500 and late-fee challan of Rs. 800 on 28.07.2025, within the six-month period envisaged under the Control Order, the Court held the cancellation unsustainable, followed a coordinate Bench ruling in CWJC No. 1361 of 2014, and directed resumption of food-grain supply and disposal of the renewal application, each preferably within four weeks.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19111 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Horen Ray Son of Late Jharilal Roy, Resident of Village- Mehndibari, Panchayat Harnagar, P.S.- Azamnagar, District Katihar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The District Magistrate, Katihar.

¶8

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Barsoi, Katihar.

¶9

The Block Supply Officer, Azamnagar, Katihar.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Anand For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (14)

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

6 06-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed for the

¶18

following relief(s):-

¶19

“(i) In the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order of S.D.O Barsoi dated 27.9.2025 in case No. 03/2025 whereby and whereunder the PDS License bearing License No. 01/2014 was cancelled on the ground that the renewal application was filed after delay of 17 months which is in violation of 13(ii) of Bihar PDS Control order 2016.

¶20

(ii) For issuing writ/order/orders in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.3 to immediately renew the license being License No. 01/2014 in terms of the challans of licensing fees amount of Rs. 500 along with challan of delay fees of fine of Rs. 800 vide challan No. 12443 and challan No. 12444 dated 28.7.2025 deposited in the treasury, Katihar, as per the order of the Licensing authority cum-S.D.O Barsoi (Respondent No. 3).

¶21

(iii) To issue an appropriate

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.19111 of 2025(6) dt.06-07-2026 2/6

¶23

writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents especially Respondent No. 3 & 4 to immediately start the allotment against the PDS license No. 01/14 of the petitioner.

¶24

(iv) For any other relief(s) that the petitioner is entitled to in the facts, laws and circumstances of the case.”

¶25

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was granted PDS license for running of the shop in the village Mehndibari, Panchayat Harnagar, Block-Azamnagar, DistrictKatihar in the year 2014. Thereafter, the license of the petitioner was renewed from time to time and the petitioner has been running the shop without any complaint from any of the beneficiaries. Learned counsel submits that the authority has suspended the license of the petitioner on 13.10.2023 vide Memo No. 602 solely on the ground that there are discrepancies in the E-Pos Machine. That earlier the petitioner has made several rounds of the office of the authority without any success and therefore, he had to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of CWJC No. 13500 of 2024. This Court vide order dated 26.11.2024 has directed to the petitioner to file a suitable representation before the concerned authority and on such representation being made, the authority has restored the license of the petitioner vide order dated 09.01.2025 and the supply was

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.19111 of 2025(6) dt.06-07-2026 3/6

¶27

also resumed. Thereafter, the authority has issued show cause notice on 24.07.2025 seeking cancellation of the license of the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner’s license was valid up till December, 2023 and the petitioner had not filed any application for renewal of his license. That the petitioner has filed his explanation and also on the instructions of the concerned authority has deposited the challan along with late fees on 28.07.2025. However, the authority without considering the same has passed the order of cancellation on 27.09.2026 (Annexure-P/6).

¶28

4. Learned counsel has submitted that during the suspension of the license of the petitioner, there was no occasion for the petitioner to get his license renewed as for the mandate of Rule 13(ii)(c) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2016 (Control Order, 2016). That unless and until the suspension was revoked, the petitioner could not deposit the challan with late fees. Further, it is stated that the suspension of the license of the petitioner was revoked on 21.01.2025 and the petitioner has deposited the challan on 28.07.2025 (i.e., well within the maximum period allowed for renewal with late fees). Learned counsel has submitted that the authority without taking note of the above mentioned facts has

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.19111 of 2025(6) dt.06-07-2026 4/6

¶30

cancelled the license of the petitioner and therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to set aside the impugned order dated 27.09.2025 and restore the license of the petitioner. Learned counsel has relied on the judgments of this Hon’ble passed in CWJC Nos. 1361 of 2014 dated 28.06.2016 & 19458 of 2024 dated 20.08.2025.

¶31

5. 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 has stated that the petitioner ought to have renewed his license within one month from the date of expiry without late fees and the maximum period permissible with late fee is six months. Learned counsel has stated that the license of the petitioner had expired in the Month of December, 2023 and the petitioner had kept quiet for almost 17 months before filing his explanation. Further, learned counsel has stated that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing a statutory appeal before the District Magistrate against the order of the cancellation dated 27.09.2025 but the petitioner without availing the same has straightaway approached this Hon’ble Court which is impermissible under law and prayed for dismissing the present writ petition.

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.19111 of 2025(6) dt.06-07-2026 5/6

¶33

6. Admittedly, in this particular case, the license of the petitioner was suspended on 13.10.2023 and was restored only on 09.01.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner on instructions of the authority has paid the challan on 28.07.2025 (i.e., well within the period of six months envisaged under the Control Order, 2016. Admittedly, under Clause 13(ii)(c) of the Control Order, 2016, the license cannot be renewed during the period of suspension.

¶34

7. A Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 1361 of 2014 dated 28.06.2016 under similar circumstances had set aside the order of cancellation and restored the license of the petitioner.

¶35

8. It is pertinent to note that the question of renewing the license of the petitioner during the suspension does not arise. Admittedly, the license was restored only on 09.01.2025 and the petitioner paid the challan on 28.07.2025 along with late fees which is well within the stipulated time. Therefore, the authority was not right in cancelling the license of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not renew his license for a period of 17 months.

¶36

9. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the impugned order of cancellation dated

¶37

Patna High Court CWJC No.19111 of 2025(6) dt.06-07-2026 6/6

¶38

27.09.2025 is set aside and the license of the petitioner is restored. The authority is directed to resume the supply of the food grains so as to enable the petitioner to distribute the same to the beneficiaries attached with his shop. The authority shall resume the supply of the food grains as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The authority shall also pass necessary orders on the application of the petitioner for renewal of the license duly taking into consideration the observations made by this Court in the present writ petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

10. With the above directions, the present writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated.

¶40

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)

¶41

Ayush/-

¶42

Horen Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Horen Ray 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

Jitendra Singh Vs The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited

Shivendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

M/s Ask Pharma Vs The State of Bihar

Kundan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Anita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Majibu Rahaman Vs State of Bihar