IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17404 of 2025 ======================================================

Manoranjan Singh, Son of Prem Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Atapur, Pach Kutti, Ward No.- 11, P.S.- Hasanpur, District- Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

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

2. The District Magistrate, District- Samastipur.

3. The District Supply Officer, District- Samastipur.

4. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Rosera, District- Samastipur.

5. The Assistant District Supply Officer, Rosera, District- Samastipur.

6. The Block Supply Officer, Hasanpur, District- Samastipur.

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Gaurav, 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):-

“A. Certiorari for quashing & setting aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rosera issued by vide Memo No.812 dated 12.09.2025 whereby and where under the license of the petitioner P.D.S shop bearing License No. 11/2021 has been cancelled contained therein Annexure -P/5 on the basis of wrongly & access quantity of food grains uploaded in the Petitioner's Epos Machine No.122100300777 for which neither any S.I.0 has been issued nor the petitioner has received the said grains in question.

B. A mandamus commanding the licensing Authority to restore the license of the petitioner P.D.S shop bearing License No. 11/2021 contained therein Annexure -P/1 & consumers of the petitioner shop as same as before & too make the allotment for the same as before.

C. A mandamus commanding the licensing Authority up to date his Epos machine as per stock received by the petitioner and distribute the same amongst the beneficiaries.

D. Any other relief or reliefs for which the be found entitled in the fact petitioner may and circumstances of the present case may be granted to him.”

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, t