Parsooram Singh Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Advocate (03) Mr. Shiv Kumar, AC to GA 3 ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER

¶14

2 25-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The present Writ Petition has been filled for the

¶16

following reliefs:-

¶17

“That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions to quash the order dated 22-04-2026 contained in Memo No. 628 by which the Ld. Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya has cancelled the License No. 18/2016 of the petitioner only on the ground of F.I.R after its notice cum suspension order dated 06-08-2026 contrary to clause 28 of the Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2016 when the petitioner was not sent to jail or gone fugitive and for direction upon the respondent No. 3 to continue allocation to the Public Distribution System Shop of the

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.8804 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026 2/3

¶19

petitioner after declaring the order of cancellation null and void and/or pass such other order(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the solitary ground given in the order dated 22.04.2026 vide Memo No. 628 for cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioner was that an First Information Report (F.I.R.) bearing Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 460 of 2024 had been instituted against the petitioner. Similarly, the impugned order has been passed on the sole ground of institution of the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard.

¶22

Having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court finds merit in the writ petition. A perusal of the PDS. (Control) Order, 2001 read with Rule 7 of the notification in G.S.R. No. 1 dated 20.02.2007 makes it clear that mere institution of a First Information Report would not constitute a valid ground for cancellation of the PDS licence. This view finds support from the decision of this Court in Umesh Ram vs. The State of Bihar and others, AIR 2014 Patna 113 as well.

¶23

In view of the above, the impugned order dated

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.8804 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026 3/3

¶25

22.04.2026 (Annexure-P/4 ) is hereby quashed.

¶26

Needless to say, supplies to the petitioner shall be

¶27

restored without delay.

¶28

It is made clear that, in case, the petitioner is subsequently convicted in the criminal case instituted against him, thereafter, the authorities are free to take necessary action in accordance with law.

¶29

With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated.

¶30

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)

¶31

Bhardwaj/-

¶32

U

Parsooram Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parsooram Singh 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

Pushpa Devi Vs The Union of India

Shio Kumar Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Manikant Kumar Vs The Managing Director, Deshratna Dr. Rajendra Prasad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd.

Bansi Das, Vs The state of Bihar

Kamkhya Narayan Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Nitu Singh, Secretary, M/s Anga Vikash Parishad Vs The State of Bihar