Case Background
The petitioner held a licence to run a Public Distribution System (PDS) shop under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. This Control Order lays down the rules for running fair price shops and for cancelling licences when rules are broken.
On 14.06.2012, the Sub Divisional Officer, Piro, acting as the Licensing Authority, passed an order cancelling the petitioner’s PDS licence. The cancellation followed an inspection conducted at the shop and a show cause notice issued to the petitioner.
The petitioner challenged this cancellation before the District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara, by way of an appeal. On 31.07.2019, the District Magistrate dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Sub Divisional Officer.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision application before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna, again challenging the cancellation of the licence. On 05.08.2021, the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the revision as well.
Aggrieved by all three orders dated 14.06.2012, 31.07.2019 and 05.08.2021, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18194 of 2021.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, hearing the matter through video-conference due to COVID-19 restrictions, focused on one main complaint raised by the petitioner. He claimed that the order cancelling his PDS licence violated the principles of natural justice because the inspection report, on the basis of which the show cause notice was issued, had never been supplied to him.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the inspection report was the very foundation of the proposed action against him. Since he had not been given a copy of that report, he allegedly did not know the real basis of the charges. On that ground, it was contended that the entire action of cancellation was illegal and fit to be set aside in the writ jurisdiction of the Patna High Court.
The Court then put a direct question to the petitioner’s counsel. The Bench asked whether, at the time of replying to the original show cause notice, the petitioner had ever raised any grievance about the non-supply of the inspection report.
The answer, as recorded in the judgment, was in the negative. The petitioner had not taken such a plea in his reply to the show cause notice.
The Court looked at Annexure-2 to the writ petition, which contained the petitioner’s written reply to the show cause notice. From that document, the Court found that there was no protest or demand from the petitioner regarding non-supply of the inspection report.
Instead, the reply showed something else. The petitioner admitted that he was not present at the shop at the time of inspection. This was one of the allegations against him. To justify his absence, he took the plea that he was unwell and under treatment by a doctor.
The Court also noted that, in the entire pleadings of the writ petition, the petitioner had not explained what actual prejudice he suffered because of not getting the inspection report. There was no clear statement that, had the report been given, he would have said anything different in his defence.
This point was very important for the Court. Under the law of natural justice, non-supply of a document can be serious, but the person complaining must show that it affected his defence in some real way. Here, the petitioner had replied on the facts, accepted key allegations, and tried to explain them, without ever saying at that time that any report was missing.
Taking these facts together, the High Court held that it was not open to the petitioner to later challenge the cancellation order, after so many years and through successive proceedings, on the new ground of non-supply of the inspection report.
The Bench observed that the petitioner had admittedly been given an opportunity of hearing by the Licensing Authority. He had filed a reply to the show cause notice and his contentions were considered.
The Court described the order of the Licensing Authority as a “speaking and reasoned” order. This means the order did not simply state a conclusion; it discussed the material and reasons in support of the decision. The Licensing Authority took into account the pleas and points raised by the petitioner in his reply before cancelling the licence.
Similarly, the orders of the Appellate Authority (District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara) and the Revisional Authority (Divisional Commissioner, Patna) were also on record. The Court noted that they were also “reasoned speaking” orders, showing that those authorities had examined the matter and given reasons for dismissing the appeal and revision.
Against this background, the Patna High Court reminded that the power it exercises under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a power of “judicial review”. In such a writ petition, the Court does not act as an appellate authority to re-assess facts or substitute its own view on the merits.
Instead, the Court must see whether there is any “legal infirmity in the decision-making process”. This includes checking whether proper procedure was followed, whether the person concerned got a reasonable chance to present his case, and whether the authorities acted within their powers and gave reasons.
After examining the record and the arguments, the High Court concluded that there was no such infirmity in this case. The petitioner had been given notice and an opportunity to reply. His explanation was considered, and all three authorities—Licensing, Appellate and Revisional—had passed reasoned orders.
Because the petitioner never raised the issue of non-supply of the inspection report at the earlier stages, and because he did not show any actual prejudice caused by it, the Court found his present challenge on that ground “untenable”.
Therefore, the Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the cancellation of the PDS licence in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ application was dismissed.
This means that the orders dated 14.06.2012 (Sub Divisional Officer, Piro), 31.07.2019 (District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara) and 05.08.2021 (Divisional Commissioner, Patna) remain valid and in force. The petitioner’s PDS licence remains cancelled.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for PDS dealers and other licence holders across Bihar. It shows that merely alleging violation of natural justice, without raising the objection at the proper time or showing actual prejudice, may not help in the High Court.
The Patna High Court has underlined that a person must raise all relevant objections when replying to a show cause notice, especially in licensing matters under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
If a dealer participates in the proceedings, replies on the facts, and allows the matter to be decided without objecting to missing documents, it becomes very difficult later to challenge the order on those grounds in writ jurisdiction.
The judgment also reinforces that the Patna High Court, while exercising powers under Article 226, will mainly verify whether the decision-making process is legally sound, rather than re-examining the facts like an appellate court. Once authorities have passed reasoned speaking orders after hearing the party, the Court will be slow to interfere.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s PDS licence was vitiated for non-supply of the inspection report, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Answer: No. The petitioner had not raised any grievance about non-supply of the inspection report in his reply to the show cause notice, nor pleaded any actual prejudice. He was given an opportunity of hearing, and the Licensing, Appellate and Revisional Authorities passed reasoned speaking orders. The Patna High Court found no legal infirmity in the decision-making process and refused to interfere under Article 226.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No earlier judgments have been cited or relied upon in the text of this decision.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18194 of 2021
Case Title: Dilip Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Citation: 2022(1) PLJR 392
Advocates: Ms. Manini Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5 for the respondents
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging cancellation of PDS licence and dismissal of appeal and revision under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016
Link to the Judgment: View full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
