IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17126 of 2025 ======================================================

Kartik Paswan, S/o Late Kesho Paswan, resident of village- Malikpur, P.S. -

Pirpainti, District- Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

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

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur.

3. The Collector, Bhagalpur.

4. The District Supply Officer, Bhagalpur.

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur.

6. The Block Supply Officer, Pirpainti, Bhagalpur.

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (26)

Mr. Tripurari Nath Ambestha, AC to SC 26 ======================================================

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

2 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):-

“(i) For quashing the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur in Supply Revision Case No. 47/2022-23 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order of learned Collector, Bhagalpur dated 18.07.2022 affirming the order of S.D.O. Kahalgaon dated 29.07.2021 cancelling the PDS Licence, has been affirmed.

(ii) For quashing the order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the learned Collector, Bhagalpur in Supply Appeal Case No. 346/2021-22 by which the order cancelling P.D.S. License dated 29.07.2021 passed by the learned S.D.O., Kahalgaon has been affirmed and appeal was dismissed.

(iii) For quashing the order contained in Memo No. 680 dated 29.07.2021 passed by the learned S.D.O., Kahalgaon whereby the PDS License of the petitioner vide License No. 41/2016 has been cancelled.

(iv) Further direct the respondent concern to restore the PDS License of the petitioner vide License No. 41/2016.”

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