IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17739 of 2025 ======================================================

Shiv Shankar Sah S/o Mulo Sah, Resident of Village- Naya Gaon, Durga Asthan, Ward No. 15, P.S.- Jamalpur, District- Munger ... Petitioner Versus

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

2. The District Magistrate, Munger.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Munger.

4. The Block Supply Officer, Jamalpur, Munger. ... Respondents ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr.Vijay Anand, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr.Addl. Advocate General (04)

======================================================

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) :

“……………. for challenging the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by Learned S.D.O Sadar, Munger fully contained in Memo No. 269 whereby and whereunder the P.D.S license granted to the petitioner for carried out the business of a Public Distribution shop was cancelled on the ground that as per the opinion report of B.S.O Jamalpur, the show cause filed by the petitioner is not found satisfactory.”

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.

4. 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 in law and against the principle of natural justice and equity.

5. Learned counsel has stated in view of the above judgment relied by the petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and matter remanded back to the authorities concerned for furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and any other material that they seek to rely on and give an opportunity of filing his explanation and thereafter pass necessary orders.

6. 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 an appeal before the District Magistrate. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

7. 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 petitioner are too trivial and cannot form a basis for cancellation of licence. No doubt there were other serious charges against the petitioner regarding non-issuance of cash-memo to the consumers, distribution of lesser amount of kerosene oil and non-distribution of food- grains but surprisingly even while making such allegations, the names of such consumers who are dissatisfied by such action of the petitioner are conspicuously missing. The allegations are sweeping in nature without reference to any specific consumer.

In my opinion the non-supply of the enquiry report conducted by the District Level Committee which is the foundation for issuance of show cause notice placed at Annexure-1 as well as non-supply of names of such of the consumers who had complained against the petitioner as regarding the irregularities in distribution of the food-grains or the kerosene oil has prejudiced the petitioner to file his purposeful reply and in absence thereof, the order impugned in my opinion, are based on no materials.

Though it was strenuously argued by Mr. Pandey that in absence of any response by the petitioner the allegations would be deemed to have been admitted but in my opinion even if the show cause reply was missing, the orders passed by t