IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17945 of 2025 ======================================================

Janak @ Janak Chaudhari S/o Lalman Yadav, Resident of Village- Ranipur, Panchayat- Sadarpur, P.S.- Barhariya, District- Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

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

2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Siwan.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Siwan-cum-Licensing Authority, Siwan.

4. The Block Supply Officer, Barhariya, District- Siwan.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (7)

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

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

2 19-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“…..for issuance of appropriate writ/writs order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 697/Aa dated 27.09.2025 (Annexure P/3) passed by the SDO Sadar Siwan cum-Licensing Authority by which he was pleased to cancel the PDS license of the petitioner being License No. 132/2007 on the basis of notice where there is no stipulation of proposed punishment and that too without supplying the inspection report and further be pleased to restore the license and supply of the petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the Sub-Divisional Officer while issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner has not enclosed the enquiry report and there is no proposal for cancellation of the license in the show-cause notice.

4. 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’).

5. Further learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.253 of 2014 dated 11.03.2015 wherein this Hon'ble Court has held that the non- supply of the enquiry report along with the show-cause is bad and against the principle of natural justice and equity. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that petitioner has taken the above ground in the appeal, but the appellate authority has not dealt with the above ground and dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Full 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.

8. Learned counsel has stated in view of the above mentioned provisions of law and judgments relied by the 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 also furnish a copy of the enquiry report along with the said show-cause notice and thereafter take necessary action.

9. 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 an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing a revision before the Commissioner. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

10. This Court in CWJC No. 253 of 2014 dated

11.03.2015 held as under:-

“In my opinion, irregularities in maintenance of notice board or maintenance of the stocks within the premises of the petitioner are too trivial and cannot form a basis for cancellation of licence. No doubt there were other seriou