IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19365 of 2025 ======================================================

Shivnath Prasad Rajak @ Shiv Nath Rajak @ Shiv Nath Baitha Son of Ram Prasad Baitha, Resident of Muhalla - Salempur, P.S. - Town, District - Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

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

2. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra.

3. The District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra.

4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chapra, District-Saran.

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Standing Counsel (12)

: Mr. Pramod Kumar Yadav, AC to SC12 ======================================================

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

3 02-02-2026 Head learned counsel for the parties.

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

“A. Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chapra vide Memo No. 833 dated 19/5/2022 whereby and whereunder license of the petitioner's Fair Price shop bearing No. 97/2016 has been cancelled with immediate effect contained in Annexure - P/1 and quashing and setting aside the order dated 13/2/2023 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra in Supply Appeal Case No. 20/2022 contained in Annexure - P/4 whereby and whereunder appeal filed by the petitioner against the cancellation order has been rejected and quashing and setting aside the order dated 2/4/2025 passed by the learned Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra in Supply Revision Case No. 144/2023 contained in Annexure - P/5 whereby and whereunder revision filed by the petitioner against the appellate order has been rejected.

B. A mandamus commanding the Respondents to restore the petitioner's license as before and to make allotment for the petitioner's shop.

C. Any other relief or reliefs for which petitioner may be found entitled in the fact and circumstances of the present case may be granted to him.”

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 be