IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20328 of 2025 ======================================================

Harimohan Chaudhary Son of Late Lakshaman Chaudhary Residing at of Village and P.O.- Makarmpur, Benipur, P.S.- Bahera, District- Darbhanga, Bihar, Pin- 847201.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

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

2. The District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Darbhanga (Appellate Authority under Clause 32 of the Bihar TPDS Control Order, 2016).

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga, Bihar.

4. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga, Bihar.

5. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Benipur, District- Darbhanga, Bihar.

6. The Block Supply Officer, Benipur, District- Madhubani, Bihar.

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (12)

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

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

2 17-02-2026 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

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

“i. Issue an appropriate writ for quashing the appellate order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Darbhanga (Respondent No.2) in PDS Appeal No. 41 of 2023, whereby the Appellate Authority has mechanically affirmed the cancellation order dated 13.03.2023, without assigning reasons and without considering the detailed submissions, documents, and statutory grounds raised by the petitioner;

ii. Issue an appropriate writ for quashing the cancellation order dated 13.03.2023 contained in Memo No. 243, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Benipur, (Respondent No.5) cancelling the petitioner's validly granted PDS Licence No. 04/2020, as wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, violative of Clause 10 and Clause 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and violative of natural justice;

iii. To quash Memo No. 1219 dated

16.09.2020, Memo No. 1299 dated 11.10.2022, and all consequential proceedings initiated without authority of law;

iv. To direct the respondents to forthwith restore the petitioner's PDS Licence No. 04/2020 with all consequential benefits;

v. To grant interim protection by staying the operation, implementation and effect of the impugned appellate order dated 03.04.2025 and cancellation order dated 13.03.2023 during the pendency of this writ petition;”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that in the Show Cause Notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer there is no proposal for cancellation of the license. 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’).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the full Bench 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.

5. Learned counsel has stated in view of the above mentioned provisions of law and judgment 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 thereafter take necessary action.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition and stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has exhausted all the remedies and all the authorities have found that the petitioner has violated the provisions of