IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17929 of 2025 ======================================================

Dharmnath Sahni S/o Jogendra Sahni, Resident of Village-Maheshpur, Tepari, P.S.-Hatha, District-Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

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

2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Muzaffarpur.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer East cum Licensing Authority, Muzaffarpur.

4. The Block Supply Officer, Bandra, District-Muzaffarpur.

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Adv.

Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate (03)

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

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

2 27-01-2026 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

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

“That the present writ application is being filed on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 1253/Aa dated 26.09.2025 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the S.D.O East Muzaffarpur cum- Licensing Authority by which he was pleased to cancel the PDS license of the petitioner being License No. 23-03-08-05/2016 on the basis of notice where there is no stipulation of proposed punishment and that too without considering the reply filed by the petitioner and further be pleased to restore the license and supply of the petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that in the Show Cause Notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer there is no proposal for cancellation of the license. 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’).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the full Bench 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.

5. Learned counsel has stated in view of the above mentioned provisions of law and judgment 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 thereafter take necessary action.

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 exhausted all the remedies and all the authorities have found that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Control Order, 2016. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

7. This Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases has held as under:

“19. Accordingly, we answer the reference as under:-

It is mandatory for a licensing authority issuing a notice under order 27(ii) to a license to mention that there is a proposal for cancellation of his license, failing which such notice cannot be treated to be a valid notice of giving sufficient opportunity to the licensee to state his case under order 27(ii) of the BTPDS Control Order. ”

8. A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner does not reveal that there is any proposal of the action sought to be taken against the petitioner. Therefore, the same has to held as bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Rule

27(ii) of the Control Order and h