Allowed

Santosh Kumar Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Aug 2026CWJC/4831/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a Public Distribution System (PDS) shop license. The Court held that the impugned order was void because the prior show-cause notice failed to mention a proposal for cancellation, violating the control order. The matter was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer to issue a compliant notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.12.2023 set aside; matter remanded to Sub-Divisional Officer to issue fresh show-cause notice and afford opportunity of hearing.

Santosh Kumar Mahto Vs The State of Bihar — Property and Title | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4831 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Santosh Kumar Mahto Son of Late Ramnarayan Mahto Resident of Bara Bazar, Ward No. 05, Mithila Cycle, P.S.- and District- Madhubani.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Madhubani.

¶8

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhubani Sadar, District- Madhubani.

¶9

The Marketing Officer, Town Area Madhubani, District- Madhubani.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Namrata Mishra, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Ratanakar Jha, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (4) ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRIJISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶13

8 17-08-2026

¶14

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶15

petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶16

This writ application has been filed for the

¶17

following reliefs:-

¶18

“(a)….for quashing the order dated 29.12.2023 contained in Memo No. 966/Supply passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhubani Sadar, DistrictMadhubani (hereinafter referred as “the Licensing Authority”) cancelling the license of Public Distribution System shop of the petitioner (Annexure-P/8).

¶19

(b) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order/s direction commanding the respondents for the

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.4831 of 2024(8) dt.17-08-2026 2/5

¶21

following reliefs:

¶22

(i)...To hold that the order contained in Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition is nonest and void ab initio in the eye of law.

¶23

(ii) To restore P.D.S. shop license of the petitioner bearing P.D.S. License No. 15 of 2017 forthwith.

¶24

(c) To grant any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶25

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’).

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the full Bench of this Hon’ble High Court 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.

¶27

Learned counsel has stated in view of the above mentioned provisions of law and judgment relied by the

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.4831 of 2024(8) dt.17-08-2026 3/5

¶29

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.

¶30

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition and stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has exhausted the statutory remedies available under the Act. The authorities have found that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Control Order, 2016. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶31

This Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases has held as under:

¶32

“19. Accordingly, we answer the references under:-

¶33

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. ”

¶34

A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the

¶35

petitioner does not reveal that there is any proposal of the action

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.4831 of 2024(8) dt.17-08-2026 4/5

¶37

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.

¶38

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, Madhubani Sadar, District-Madhubani dated 29.12.2023 (Annexure-P/7) is set aside. The matter is 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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

Patna High Court CWJC No.4831 of 2024(8) dt.17-08-2026 5/5

¶42

of receipt of a copy of this order. Any order passed shall be communicated to the petitioner.

¶43

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is

¶44

allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶45

(Girijish Kumar, J)

¶46

Aman/-

¶47

Santosh Kumar Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Narayan Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjeet Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Sushil Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Prasant Kumar @ Prashant Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Narayan Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Irfan Sallah Vs The State of Bihar