IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6421 of 2025 ======================================================

Bhrigu Nandan Jha son of Late Baladev Jha, resident of village Kasba, P.O.-

Manikpur, P.S.- Tarapur, District- Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Additional chief Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger.

3. The District Magistrate, Munger.

4. The District Supply Officer, Munger.

5. The Sub-divisional Officer, Tarapur, District- Munger.

6. The Block Development Officer, Tarapur, District- Munger.

7. The Block Supply Officer, Tarapur, District- Munger.

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Adv.

Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Adv.

Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (12) For the State : Mr. Kamlesh Kishore, Adv.

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

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

4 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

“That this application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs or order/orders in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2 in Supply Revision Case No. 136/2022 (Annexure-P/7) by which revision application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05.04.2022 passed in P.D.S. Appeal Case No. 04/2020-21 by the District Magistrate, Munger has been rejected and further for quashing of the order dated 05.04.2022 passed in P.D.S. Appeal Case No. 04/2020-21 (Annexure-P/6) by Respondent No.3 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.08.2020 contained in Memo No.1054 issued by the Respondent No.5 (Annexure-P/5) has been rejected and further for quashing of the order contained in Memo No.1054 dated 21.08.2020 (Annexure-P/5) issued under the signature of Respondent No.5 by which the P.D.S. license of the petitioner bearing No. 04/2016 has been cancelled and further in the nature of mandamus for directing and commanding the respondent to restore the P.D.S. license bearing No. 04/2016 to the petitioner. And further for any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

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 nonsupply 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 f