IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11108 of 2025 ======================================================

Ram Bhajan Paswan Son of Late Mossafir Paswan, Resident of village-

Badhauna, P.S. - Konch, District- Gaya ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Food and Civil Supply Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Divisional Commissioner, Gaya.

5. The District Magistrate, Gaya, District- Gaya.

6. The Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Officer, Tikari, Gaya, District-

Gaya.

7. The District Supply Officer, Gaya, District- Gaya.

8. The Block Supply Officer, Konch, District- Gaya. ... Respondents ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr.Parshant Pratap, GP 2 ======================================================

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

5 02-02-2026 Heard the parties.

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

“i) For issuance of writ in the nature of nature of certiorari for quashing the quashing the order dated 08.02.2025 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya in Supply Revision Case No. 117/2024 whereby and whereunder revision application has been dismissed and affirmed the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Gaya.

ii) For further quashing the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Gaya in Supply Appeal Case No.56/2017 by which rejected the appeal and affirmed the order dated 25.11.2017 passed by S.D.O. Tikari without considering the case of the petitioner and respondents asked show cause without supplying inspection report, which is mandatory by Rule 27 (ii)

of the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, 2016.

iii) For further quashing the order bearing Memo No. 1023 dated 25.11.2017 by which cancelled the PDS license No. 32/2016 to petitioner with temporary effect, on basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Block Supply Officer, Konch, District-Gaya but said very report has not served to the petitioner iv) For further quashing the show cause vide memo No.807 dated 08.09.2017 issued without serving enquiry report to the petitioner.

v) For further give other legal consequential benefit to the petitioner.”

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 auth