IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17202 of 2025 ======================================================

1. Arjun Prasad Son of Aditya Prasad Resident of Villlage- Ekrama P.S.-

Ekrama District- Sheikhpura

2. Rajender Prasad @ Rajendra Paswan Son of Ram Charan Paswan Resident of Villlage- Shravan Bigaha P.S.- Chewada District- Sheikhpura ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary. Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The District Magistrate, Sheikhpura

4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sheikhpura 5. The District Supply Officer, Sheikhpura ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Adv.

: Mr. Surya Narayan Sah, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (22)

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

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

3 23-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

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

“(i) For the issuance of a Rule in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 07-05-2025 passed by Respondent No.4, The Sub Divisional Officer, Sheikhpura whereby and whereunder the Application of the petitioners for restoration of their license bearing 29/85 and 03/1985 has been declined on the ground that the petitioner could not file the petition for restoration of their license within one month of their acquittal in Ariari P.S. Case No. 125/2023 under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the I.P.C. vide Judgment dated 16-09-2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class Sheikphura. (ii) for the issuance of a Rule in the nature of writ of Mandamus to follow the provisions of Bihar Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (In short-Control Order, 2016) in a just and proper manner.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are PDS dealer at Panchayat-Ekrama and Shravan Bigha in Block- Chewada in the district of Sheikhpura. That they were granted PDS license in the year 1985 and their license Nos. were 29/85 and 3/85 respectively and since 1985 the petitioners have been running the PDS shop without any complaint. Learned counsel submits that based on the Ariari P.S. Case No. 125 of 2023, the licenses of the petitioners were cancelled. That subsequently the Judicial Magistrate-cum- 1^st Class, Sheikhpura vide judgment dated 16.09.2023 has acquitted the petitioners (Annexure-P/1). Learned counsel submits that after the petitioner were acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate-cum- 1^st Class, Sheikhpura on 16.09.2023, the petitioners have approached to the competent authority for restoring their respective PDS licenses. However, the authority without appreciating the facts of the case or the provisions of the Control Order, 2016 has rejected the application made by the petitioners for restoration of their licenses. The authority on the wrong premise that the applications for restoration has been made on 27.11.2023 whereas as per Rule 29 of the (Control) Order, 2016, the petitioners were obligated to file a representation/ application seeking application within a period of thirty days. Learned counsel submits that the said Rule 29 does not apply to the facts of the present case, as the petitioners were never convicted. It is submitted that the said Rule 29 will apply only to persons who were convicted and subsequently in a revision or appeal, the conviction has been set aside. However, in this case the petitioners have never been convicted but they have acquitted by the Trial Court itself and not by any appellate or revisional courts. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent authority is not only illegal, perverse, but contrary to the provisions of the Contro