IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18328 of 2025 ======================================================

Nutan Kumari, Wife of Shiv Shankar Suman @ Guddu Sharma, Resident of Gopalpur Tola, Balia Basa, Ward No.- 6, P.S.- Udakishunganj, District-

Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

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

2. The District Magistrate, Madhepura.

3. The District Supply Officer, Madhepura.

4. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Udakishunganj, Madhepura.

5. The Block Supply Officer, Udakishunganj, Madhepura.

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shrish Anurag, Adv.

Mr. Prashant Sinha, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.Addl. Advocate General 04 ======================================================

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 writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 28- 02-2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Madhepura in PDS License Appeal Case No. 05/2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of suspension and subsequent cancellation of the PDS License No.

77/2018 of the petitioner has been rejected.

(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order contained in memo no. 616 dated 08-02-2023 issued by the Subdivisional Officer, Udakishunganj whereby the PDS license No. 77/2018 of the petitioner has been cancelled.

(iii) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of memo no. 3847 dated 09-11-2022 issued by the Subdivisional Officer, Udakishunganj whereby the PDS License No.

77/2018 of the petitioner has been suspended.

(iv) For necessary direction upon the respondent authorities to restore the PDS license No. 77/2018 of the petitioner, as the allegation against the petitioner is relating to missing foodgrains in 1373 bags, which the petitioner is ready to return to the authority and despite such offer being made by the petitioner before the District Magistrate, the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected.

(v) For any other direction, which your Lordships may deem fit and proper 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