IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17506 of 2025 ======================================================

Manoj Kumar Gupta S/o Panalal Prasad, Resident of village - Parariya Arthu, P.O- Arthu, P.S.-Arthu, District-Rohtas ... Petitioner Versus

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

2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Vikramganj, Rohtas.

4. The Block Supply Officer, Rohtas. ... Respondents ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr.Vijay Anand, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr.Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC 5 ======================================================

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

2 22-01-2026 Heard the parties.

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

(i) For challenging the order dated 27.09.2025 passed by Respondent No.3 i.e. S.D.O Vikramganj, Rohtas fully contained in Memo No. 828 whereby and whereunder the PDS license being License no. 07/20 granted to the petitioner for carried out the business of a P.D.S shop within the Panchayat Sahinaon, Block Dawath, District Rohtas was cancelled on the ground that after obtaining the L.T.I of consumer on the Pos machine not supply the stipulated quantity of foodgrains to them & further tampering with the weighing scale.

(ii) For writ/s, order/orders in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents especially Respondent No. 3 & 4 to immediate start the allotment against the petitioner's License No. 7/20.

(iii) Pass such other order/s as your Lordship may deem fit & proper.

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 maint