Case Background
The appellant was a public distribution system (PDS) licence holder in Purnea district, Bihar. His work was to distribute foodgrains and other essential commodities to ration card holders under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001.
An inspection was carried out by the authorities. On the basis of this inspection, certain irregularities were found in the functioning of his fair price shop. Following this, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Dhamdaha issued a show cause notice dated 27.12.2011 to the appellant, asking him to explain these irregularities.
After considering his reply, the SDO, Dhamdaha passed an order dated 04.02.2012 cancelling his PDS licence. This meant that the appellant was no longer authorised to run the fair price shop.
The appellant did not accept this decision. He filed a statutory appeal before the Collector, Purnea, registered as Supply Appeal No. 45 of 2012. The Collector, by order dated 05.12.2015, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the SDO’s cancellation order.
Still aggrieved, the appellant went in revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, by filing Supply Revision No. 42 of 2017. The Divisional Commissioner, by order dated 12.12.2022, dismissed the revision and upheld the orders of the SDO and the Collector.
The appellant then approached the Patna High Court by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3350 of 2023, challenging all three orders: the SDO’s cancellation order dated 04.02.2012, the Collector’s appellate order dated 05.12.2015, and the Divisional Commissioner’s revisional order dated 12.12.2022.
The learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court, by order dated 21.04.2023, dismissed the writ petition. The Single Judge primarily noted that there were concurrent findings of fact by all three authorities, and there was no perversity in their conclusions.
The appellant then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 711 of 2023 under Clause X of the Letters Patent, challenging the dismissal of his writ petition by the learned Single Judge.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench, consisting of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy, heard the appeal. The central issue before the Bench was whether the appellant’s PDS licence had been cancelled in violation of the principles of natural justice and whether the Single Judge was wrong in refusing to interfere with the authorities’ orders.
The appellant’s counsel argued that his basic rights of fair hearing were violated. According to him, the authorities never supplied him with the inspection report. He also claimed that statements of alleged beneficiaries, who had given statements against him, were not provided.
On this basis, he said that he had been denied a proper opportunity to defend himself and that the cancellation order of the SDO, as well as the orders of the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, were vitiated. He contended that the learned Single Judge did not properly appreciate this aspect of non-supply of documents and violation of natural justice.
He further submitted that the learned Single Judge had only focused on the point that all authorities had concurrently found irregularities and that there was no perversity. According to him, the more important point was that the proceedings themselves were unfair due to non-supply of crucial documents.
Therefore, he urged that on the ground of violation of natural justice, the High Court should set aside the three impugned orders as well as the Single Judge’s decision and restore his licence.
On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the appeal. He argued that the authorities had recorded concurrent findings of fact after duly considering the materials on record. There was no perversity or arbitrariness in their conclusions.
He highlighted that when the show cause notice was served, the appellant had submitted his reply. In that reply, he did not ask for any document, including the inspection report or the beneficiaries’ statements. On the contrary, he admitted two irregularities pointed out by the authorities.
According to the State, this meant that the appellant was fully aware of the allegations and had a chance to respond. His failure to demand documents at the proper time, and his admissions regarding some irregularities, showed that there was no denial of fair hearing. Therefore, the authorities’ decisions, and the Single Judge’s order, were legally sound.
The Division Bench then examined the records. It first noted that the appellant had not originally produced the show cause notice dated 27.12.2011 and his reply to that notice before the Court. However, during the hearing of the appeal, his counsel supplied copies of both documents to the Bench.
The Court closely read the show cause notice and the reply. From these, it found that the appellant had clearly admitted the first two irregularities mentioned in the notice. In respect of the third irregularity, he had only denied the allegation without more.
The Bench then carefully checked whether, in his reply, the appellant had demanded any document, including the enquiry or inspection report, or the statements of beneficiaries. It found that he had not done so. There was no request in his reply asking the authorities to supply any document or the enquiry report.
In other words, when he got the show cause notice, he did not complain that he lacked information or that he needed copies of documents to defend himself. Instead, he replied on merits and even admitted two of the alleged irregularities.
In light of this, the Court rejected the argument that the authorities had violated the principles of natural justice by not supplying documents. The Bench held that, looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said that there was any breach of natural justice.
The Bench next examined the legal framework under which the licence was cancelled. It referred to the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, and particularly Clause 7(1)(a) thereof. After considering the nature of the irregularities and the admitted violations, the Court held that the concerned authority had rightly exercised the powers vested in it under Clause 7(1)(a) to cancel the licence.
The Division Bench then went through the orders passed by the SDO, the Collector, and the Divisional Commissioner. It found that all three authorities had recorded findings of fact based on the material before them. These findings were concurrent, meaning all authorities agreed on the facts and the conclusion. The Court did not find any perversity or arbitrariness in these findings.
Because of this, the Bench agreed with the learned Single Judge, who had refused to interfere with the authorities’ decisions. The Division Bench held that the Single Judge had not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition.
Finally, the Bench concluded that no interference was required in the Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal and stated that any interlocutory applications, if pending, would also stand disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for PDS dealers, fair price shop licensees, and government officers handling PDS regulation in Bihar.
First, it shows that if a licence holder admits irregularities in his reply to a show cause notice, the authorities can act on those admissions. Later, the licence holder cannot easily claim that he was denied a fair opportunity, especially if he did not ask for documents at the relevant time.
Second, the Patna High Court emphasised that where there are concurrent findings of fact by multiple authorities, the High Court will be very slow to interfere, unless there is clear perversity or arbitrariness. This reinforces that factual findings in departmental proceedings carry significant weight.
Third, for ordinary ration card holders and beneficiaries, this decision underlines that authorities are empowered under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, especially Clause 7(1)(a), to cancel licences where irregularities are found.
At the same time, the judgment signals to licence holders that if they feel their rights are being violated procedurally, they must raise such objections at the earliest stage, including asking for relevant documents when replying to show cause notices.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Did the cancellation of the appellant’s PDS licence and the subsequent appellate and revisional orders violate the principles of natural justice due to non-supply of the inspection report and beneficiaries’ statements?
Answer: No. The Court found that the appellant had admitted two irregularities in his reply to the show cause notice and had not demanded any documents or enquiry report. On these facts, there was no violation of natural justice. -
Issue: Was the learned Single Judge wrong in refusing to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities cancelling the PDS licence?
Answer: No. The Division Bench held that there was no perversity or arbitrariness in the orders of the SDO, the Collector, and the Divisional Commissioner. Therefore, the Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. -
Issue: Whether the authority rightly exercised powers under Clause 7(1)(a) of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 in cancelling the licence?
Answer: Yes. The Court held that, considering the irregularities found and the legal provisions, the authority had correctly exercised its powers under Clause 7(1)(a) to cancel the licence.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No previous case law has been cited or discussed in the text of this judgment.
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 711 of 2023 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3350 of 2023
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Mandal v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Citation: 2025(4) PLJR 48
Advocates:
- For the Appellant: Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate; Mr. Indrajeet Kumar, Advocate
- For the Respondents: Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5; Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG-5
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging cancellation of PDS licence and confirmation of cancellation in statutory appeal and revision.
Date of Judgment: 06.08.2025
Relevant Statute/Instrument: Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, Clause 7(1)(a)
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court official judgment link
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.
