IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17394 of 2025 ======================================================

Arshad Ali, Son of Shamshuddin Khan, Resident of Ward no. 20, PS.-

Vikramganj, District Rohtas, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Civil Supply, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas.

4. The Additional District Magistrate, Rohtas.

5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bikramganj, Rohtas.

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Adya Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Mishra, Sr. Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.Addl. Advocate General 04 ======================================================

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

2 22-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

“i. For quashing the order contained in memo no. 814 dated 27.09.2025 issued under the signature of Respondent Sub-Divisional Officer whereby and whereunder PDS Licence no. 35 of

2007 of the petitioner was cancelled.

ii. For quashing the letter contained in memo no. 548 dated 01.09.2025 by which show cause was issued to the petitioner in gross violation of natural justice since the enquiry report was not served to the petitioner.

iii. For restoring the PDS license no. 35 of 2007 of the petitioner.

iv. Any other order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted to 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 petitione