The Patna High Court did not restore the licence but directed the shopkeeper to file an appeal before the District Magistrate.
The Court ordered that the delay in filing the appeal must be condoned.
The District Magistrate now has to decide the appeal within three months.
Case Background
The petitioner was a fair price shop dealer holding Public Distribution System (P.D.S.) Licence No. 1/2007. He was operating under the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur, in District Madhubani.
On 23.03.2019, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur, issued Memo No. 117 cancelling the petitioner’s P.D.S. licence. According to the petition, this cancellation order was passed without properly considering the show-cause reply filed by the petitioner.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11849 of 2019. He sought to challenge the cancellation order and to get his licence restored so that he could again receive allotment of foodgrains and other articles for public distribution.
The case came up before Hon’ble Justice Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy, and was finally decided on 23.09.2025.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner asked for three main reliefs in his writ petition. First, he requested the Patna High Court to quash Memo No. 117 dated 23.03.2019 by which his P.D.S. Licence No. 1/2007 was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur. He argued that this cancellation had been done without properly looking into his show-cause reply.
Second, he sought a direction that the respondents should allow him to continue under P.D.S. Licence No. 1/2007, which had earlier been granted in his favour, and to resume allotment of PDS articles for distribution to the public.
Third, he sought any other suitable order which the Court might consider fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
When the matter was heard, the State’s counsel, appearing for the respondents, pointed out that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 contains a specific appeal remedy for persons whose PDS licence has been cancelled.
The State relied upon Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The Court reproduced this provision in its judgment. It states that any person aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority denying the issue or renewal of a licence, or cancelling a licence, may file an appeal to the District Officer within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. It also states that the District Magistrate should, as far as practicable, dispose of the appeal within sixty days.
On reading the reliefs sought by the petitioner and considering the nature of the grievance, the Court observed that the petitioner clearly had an alternative remedy available under Section 32(iii) of the 2016 Control Order. This alternative remedy was an appeal to the District Magistrate against the cancellation of his PDS licence.
The existence of such an appeal remedy is important because High Courts, while exercising writ jurisdiction, generally expect parties to first use the remedies provided under the relevant law or policy, such as an appeal, before coming to the High Court.
The petitioner’s counsel accepted this legal position and informed the Court that the petitioner intended to file an appeal before the concerned District Magistrate. However, he expressed one difficulty: the statutory limitation period of thirty days for filing the appeal had already expired.
Because of this delay, the petitioner was apprehensive that his appeal might not be entertained by the District Magistrate. Therefore, he requested the High Court to issue a direction to the District Magistrate to consider and decide his appeal by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which deals with condonation of delay where sufficient cause is shown.
The Court took into account that the petitioner had approached the High Court and that there exists a specific mechanism to challenge cancellation orders through an appeal. Instead of itself examining the merits of the cancellation order—such as whether the show-cause reply was properly considered—the Court chose to guide the petitioner back to the statutory remedy.
In other words, the Court did not decide whether the Sub-Divisional Officer was right or wrong in cancelling the licence. Rather, it focused on the proper forum and process to challenge such an order under the law governing the Public Distribution System in Bihar.
While disposing of the writ petition, the Court passed a clear direction. It directed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of the High Court’s order before the concerned District Magistrate.
Recognising that the statutory thirty-day period had already lapsed, the Court went a step further to protect the petitioner from being thrown out on the ground of delay. The judgment specifically directed that the delay in filing the appeal “shall be condoned” by the District Magistrate.
This means that the District Magistrate has no discretion to reject the appeal on the ground that it is time-barred, so long as the appeal is filed within the four-week window fixed by the High Court. The condonation of delay is, in effect, mandated by the Court’s order.
Further, the Court directed that the appellate authority—that is, the District Magistrate—must dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of filing of the appeal. This ensures that the petitioner’s grievance is addressed within a fixed and reasonable time frame, rather than being kept pending indefinitely.
The Court thereby ensured two things: first, that the petitioner is not left remediless despite the expiry of the original limitation period; and second, that the dispute is decided by the appropriate authority designated under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of. The Court also clarified that any interlocutory applications in the case would stand disposed of in view of the final order.
The net effect is that the High Court did not itself restore the licence. Instead, it reopened the door for the petitioner to challenge the licence cancellation before the District Magistrate through an appeal, with the assurance that the delay in filing the appeal will not be held against him and that his appeal will be decided within a fixed period.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for fair price shop dealers and others involved in the Public Distribution System in Bihar. It highlights that when a licence is cancelled, the first remedy is an appeal under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and not a direct writ petition.
For licence holders, it sends a clear message: if a PDS licence is cancelled or not renewed, one must promptly use the appeal remedy before the District Officer or District Magistrate. Going straight to the Patna High Court without using the appeal remedy is generally discouraged.
At the same time, the judgment shows that the High Court is prepared to protect people who may have missed the appeal deadline but have a genuine grievance. Here, even though the limitation period had lapsed, the Court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal and ordered that the delay must be condoned.
This helps similarly placed shopkeepers who may be unaware of legal time limits or may approach the wrong forum first. It gives them a second chance to have their case heard on merits by the proper authority.
The judgment also reinforces that appeals in such matters should be decided without undue delay. By directing the District Magistrate to dispose of the appeal within three months, the Court has tried to ensure that livelihoods and public service through PDS are not left in uncertainty for long periods.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the petitioner directly challenge the cancellation of his PDS licence in a writ petition before the Patna High Court without first filing an appeal under Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016?
Answer: No. The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 32(iii), and therefore directed him to file such an appeal before the District Magistrate. - Issue: What should happen when the statutory limitation period for filing that appeal has already expired by the time the petitioner approaches the High Court?
Answer: The Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks from receipt of the order and directed that the delay in filing the appeal shall be condoned by the District Magistrate, who must then decide the appeal within three months.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No prior judicial decisions or case law have been cited or relied upon in this judgment. The Court’s reasoning is based on Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and the Limitation Act reference raised by counsel.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11849 of 2019
Case Title: Ram Deo Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 (4) PLJR 531
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy
Date of Judgment: 23.09.2025
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Narayan Mahto
- For the Respondents: Mr. Arvind Ujjwal (SC-4)
Respondents: State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Food Supply and Commerce Department, Government of Bihar, Patna; District Magistrate, Madhubani; District Supply Officer, Madhubani; Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani; Block Supply Officer, Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition challenging cancellation of a Public Distribution System (PDS) fair price shop licence, with the High Court ultimately directing the petitioner to avail the statutory appeal remedy.
Link to Judgment: file:///C:/Users/Adity/OneDrive/Documents/Vaktrita%20Final/case%201265.pdf
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.
