IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5429 of 2025 ======================================================

Nisar Ahmad @ Md. Nisar Ahmad, Son of Late Jawed @ Zawwad, Resident of village- Baluganj, Kumharwa, Jhawwari, P.S.- Jalalgarh, District- Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

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

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, District- Purnea.

3. The District Magistrate, Purnea, District- Purnea.

4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baisi, District- Purnea.

5. The Supply Inspector, Under Block- Amour, District- Purnea.

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate. Mr. Nadimul Hasan, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumari A. GP 3 with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AC to GP 3.

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

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

6 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

“(i) For issuance of appropriate writ or writs, order or orders and direction to the concerned respondent authority to re-call the cancellation order of PDS License of the petitioner as such Licence No. 82/2016 and also quashing the order dated 19.09.2022 (as contained in Annexure-3) passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner in supply Revision No. 97 of 2022 and also quashing the order dated 22.02.2022 in supply Appeal No. 276 of 2021 (as contained in Annexure-2) passed by the Respondent No. 3 by which the District Collector Purnea District purnea has not applied his judicial mind and not consider the facts of the case as well as Law and on wrong assumption of facts and law and relied upon the order dated 15.10.2020 in E.C. Case No. 05/2020 passed by the SDO Baisi District-Purnea, the Respondent No. 4 by which who has cancelled the PDS Licnece No. 82/16 of the petitioner only on the basis of false and fabricated report submitted by the supply inspector Block Amour District-Purnea. That the Respondents authorities have not consider the material facts of the case and not applied their independent judicial Mind before passing the said impugned orders which are fit to be set aside in the eye of law.

(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to the concerned respondents to follow the different circular issued by the Government State of Bihar for the purpose of re-appointment or re-call licence of a person for PDS Dealer after some penalty.”

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.