IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22687 of 2019 ======================================================

Nandkishor Prasad, Son of Tilakdhari Prasad, Resident of Village-Kharauan, Village Panchayat-Moramardana, Police Station-Bodh Gaya, District Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumers Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Gaya.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya.

4. Assistant District Supply Officer, Sadar Gaya.

5. The Block Supply Officer, Bodh Gaya, Dist-Gaya.

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

Appearance :

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

For the Respondent/s : Mr.S.Raza Ahmad (AAG 5)

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

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

2 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

“………….for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions to quash the order dated 17-10-2019 contained in memo No. 966 by which the Ld. Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya has capaciously been cancelled the License No. 08/18 of the petitioner carrying on business under the Public Distribution System as a P.D.S dealer and for direction upon the respondent No. 3 to continue allocation to the Public Distribution System Shop of the petitioner after declaring the cancelation order null and void and/or pass such other order(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Respondent No. 3, i.e., Sub- Divisional Officer has passed the order of termination of the P.D.S. license of the petitioner without any application of mind and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the inspection which has been taken place on 28.07.2019, the Block Development Officer has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 22.08.2019 (Annexure 1), to which the petitioner has given a suitable explanation (Annexure 2). Thereafter the authority without adverting to the said show cause filed by the petitioner has passed the impugned order of cancellation based on the opinion given by the Assistant District Supply Officer. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is bereft of any reasons, the authority except stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory, has neither adverted to the explanation nor passed the order on merit. Learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned order of termination may be set aside and the matter remanded back to the authority concerned for passing orders afresh duly giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the District Magistrate under Clause 32(3) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. However, the petitioner without availing the same has straight away approached this Hon’ble Court by filing the present CWJC. Learned counsel further submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner with regard to the running of the PDS shop and the authorities duly taking into consideration the report of the Assistant District Supply Officer has passed the impugned order. That there are no infirmities in the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer which requires any interference from this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. A perusal of the impugned order dated

17.10.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer reveals that the authority has relied on the