IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10691 of 2025 ======================================================

Shiv Shankar Ray, Son of Ramdev Ray, Resident of Village- Mahuli, Block Bochaha, P.S. Hathauri, District Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

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

2. The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

3. The District Supply Officer, Muzaffarpur.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer, East Muzaffarpur.

5. The Block Supply Officer, Bochaha, District-Muzaffarpur.

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s : Dr. Md. Raisul Haque, SC 10.

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

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

5 16-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

“This writ application has been filed in the nature of Certiorari for challenging the orders:-

(i) For challenging the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by Learned SDO, East Muzaffarpur whereby and whereunder the License granted to the petitioner being License No. 23-07-20- 02/2016 for carried out the business of Public Distribution Shop in Panchayat Bhutane, Block Bochaha, District Muzaffarpur was cancelled on the ground that he has failed to enclosed any supporting document with regard to shortage of food grains found at the time of inspection.

(ii) For challenging the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by learned Collector-cum-District Magistrate Muzaffarpur in Supply Appeal No. 01/25 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the SDO East Muzaffarpur was rejected and affirm the order of cancellation dated 14.08.2024. (iii) To issue writ/order/orders directing the Licensing authority especially Respondent No. 4 to restore the PDS License of the petitioner which has been wrongly and illegally cancelled.”

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 behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ