IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17399 of 2025 ======================================================

Lalan Ram, Son of Late Kalpati Ram, Damodarpur, Damodarpur, Bhojpur, Bihar 802166.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna.

4. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Arrah.

5. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur.

6. The Block Supply Officer, Shahpur, Bhojpur.

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Mishra, Sr. Adv.

Mrs.Adya Pandey, 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. 1352 dated 11.09.2025 issued under the signature of Respondent Sub-Divisional Officer whereby and where under PDS Licence no. 52 of 2016 of the petitioner was cancelled.

ii. For quashing the order contained in memo no. 1301 dated 05.09.2025 issued under the signature of Respondent Sub-Divisional Officer whereby and where under the petitioner has been directed to file showcause for irregularities found by the Respondent Block Supply Officer Shahpur.

Iii. For restoring the PDS license no. 52 of

2016 of the petitioner.

iv. during the pendency of the present writ petition. Notice contained in letter no. 14 dated 08.01.2025 issued vide letter no.14 under the signature of Block Supply Officer Jagdishpur may be kept in abeyance V. 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 re