IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18671 of 2025 ======================================================

Devendra Kumar Das Son of Karu Das, Resident of Village- Bihta, P.S-

Mahkar, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.

4. The District Supply Officer, Gaya.

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nimchak, Bathani, Khijarsarai, Gaya.

6. The Block Supply Officer, Khijarsarai, Gaya.

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Advocate 5 ======================================================

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

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

2. The present Writ Petition has been filled for the following reliefs:-

“i. For issuance of appropriate of writ/s, direction/s, order/s for quashing order dated 14.08.2025 contained in Memo No. 1830 dated 14.08.2025 passed by Respondent No. 4 whereby and under he was pleased to cancel the PDS License of the petitioner bearing No.

36 of 2016 with immediate effect.

ii. For issuance of appropriate of writ/s, direction/s, order/s for quashing show cause notice issued to the petitioner vide Letter No. 1455 dated 07.07.2025 whereby and under Second Show Cause Notice has been issued to the petitioner for submitting his reply within a fornight that why not PDS License of the petitioner be cancelled.

iii. For issuance of appropriate fo writ/s direction/s, order/s to the respondents to restore the PDS License of the petitioner bearing No. 36/2016 after quashing the order dated 14.08.2025 and thereafter allow the petitioner to operate and run his PDS Shop within any hindrance.

iv. To pass any order or orders as 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 impugned order dated 14.08.2025 in Memo No. 1830 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nimchak, Bathani, Khijarsarai, Gaya i.e. Respondent No. 5 is liable to be set aside as the same is against the principles of natural justice and equity. Learned counsel has stated that though the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation to the show cause notice, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not considered the said explanation and passed the orders in a mechanical manner. That the explanation submitted by the petitioner has not been adverted to by the Sub-Divisional Officer in his order. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for passing orders afresh duly taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present Writ Petition and stated that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the District Magistrate. Learned counsel has stated that the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is a well reasoned order and does not require any interference of this Court and prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

5. A perusal of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer shows that the Sub-Divisional Officer while passing the orders has not adverted to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Even though the petitioner has given a detailed explanation to the show cause notice, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not discussed the explanation submitted by the petitioner and passed the orders in a mechanical manner. This Court in a catena of cases, has held that any order that is passed has to contain the reasons for passing the said orders. Unless and until the reasons are given in the