IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18323 of 2025 ======================================================

Jai Ram Prasad, Son of Late Karu Prasad, Chairman, Vyapar Mandal, Sirdalla-cum-Public Distribution Shop Licensee Sirdalla, Resident of Village- Babninagwan, Sirdalla, Block and Police Station-Sirdalla, District - Nawadah.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food Supply and Consumer Affairs, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Nawadah.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer cum Licensing Authority, Rajauli, District-

Nawadah.

4. The Block Supply Officer, Sirdalla, District-Nawadah.

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arun Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ramadhar Singh, Government Pleader (25)

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

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

2 27-01-2026 Head learned counsel for the parties.

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

“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the impugned order bearing Memo No. 297 dated 16.09.2025 issued under the signature of Respondent No. 3 whereby without enclosing the enquiry report alongwith show cause notice the P.D.S. License of petitioner has been cancelled relying upon enquiry report in gross violation of Principal of Natural Justice as also contrary to Division Bench judgement passed by this Hon'ble Court as well as different judicial pronouncement of this Hon'ble Court.

(ii) For direction upon the Respondent no. 3 to reinstate the P.D.S. License of the petitioner and allowed to lift the food grains attached to the P.D.S. Shop of the petitioner?

(iii) Any other order/orders for granting any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

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