##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18902 of 2025

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

Uma Kant Yadav Son of Late Baleshwar Yadav, Resident of Village-Bramha,

P.S.-Chautham, District-Khagaria (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer

Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, District-Khagaria.

3. The District Supply Officer, District-Khagaria.

4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Khagaria, District-Khagaria.

5. The Assistant District Supply Officer, Khagaria, District-Khagaria.

6. The Block Supply Officer, Chautham, District-Khagaria.

... ... Respondent/s

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

Appearance :

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

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel 01

For the State : Mr. Md. Irshad, AC to SC-1

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

ORAL ORDER

2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

following relief(s):-

“A. Certiorari for quashing & setting

aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional

Officer, Khagaria issued by vide Memo No.351

dated 27.09.2025 whereby and where under the

license of the petitioner P.D.S shop bearing

License No. 01C-/2007 has been cancelled

contained therein Annexure -P/5 on the contrary

of the provisions only on the basis of some

general, ominous, false, fabricated & self

manufactured allegations have leveled against

Patna High Court CWJC No.18902 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026

2/7

the petitioner prejudicially & purely with

malafide intention which is beyond the truth &

fact of this matter.

B. A mandamus commanding the

licensing Authority to restore the license of the

petitioner P.D.S shop bearing License No.

01C-/2007 contained therein Annexure -P/1 &

consumers of the petitioner shop as same as

before & too make the allotment for the same as

before.”

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

nonsupply of the enquiry report along with the show-cause is

bad and against the principle of natural justice and equity.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18902 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026

3/7

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 mai