IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2208 of 2026 ======================================================

Umesh Prasad Singh Son of Jai Nandan Singh Resident of Village- Asoi Lachhiram, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Vaishali (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, District- Vaishali.

3. The District Supply Officer, District- Vaishali.

4. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Hajipur, District- Vaishali.

5. The Assistant Disrict Supply Officer, Hajipur, District- Vaishali.

6. The Block Supply Officer, Bhagwanpur, District- Vaishali.

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

Appearance :

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

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (25)

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

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

2 11-03-2026 Head learned counsel for the parties.

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

“A. Certiorari for quashing & setting aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Hajipur by vide Memo No.715 dated 19.12.2025 whereby and where under the license of the petitioner P.D.S shop bearing License No. 32/2007 has been cancelled contained therein Annexure -P/4 on the basis of some general, ominous, false, fabricated & self manufactured allegations have leveled against him prejudicially & purely with pure malicious intention which is beyond the truth & fact of this matter and on the contrary of the provisions.

B. A mandamus commanding the licensing Authority to restore the license of the petitioner P.D.S shop bearing License No. 32/2007 contained therein Annexure -P/1 & consumers of the petitioner shop as same as before &

too make the allotment for the same as before.

C. Any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner may be found entitled in the fact and circumstances of the present case may be granted to him.”

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 petition and stated that the present writ