IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9388 of 2025 ====================================================== Rita Devi, Wife of Janardhan Kumar, Resident of Village- Birnoudha, Gram Panchayat Raj- Goradih, P.S.- Goradih, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Supply Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Food and Supply Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 4. The District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Bhagalpur. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar -cum- Licensing Authority, Bhagalpur. 6. The Block Marketing Officer, Goradih Block, Goradih, District- Bhagalpur. 7. The Block Supply Officer, Goradih Block, Goradih, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chandrasekhar Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Additional Advocate General (12) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER 4 08-10-2025 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 writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of Licensing Authority, Respondent No.- 5, contained in Memo No.-1479 dated 23.11.2022 cancelling the PDS License No.-04/2019 of the petitioner and further quash the order of appellate order dated 25.09.2023 passed in Supply Appeal Case No. 28/23-24 and further quash the order of Revisional Authority passed in Patna High Court CWJC No.9388 of 2025(4) dt.08-10-2025 2/7 Supply Revision Case No.-34/2023-24 vide order dated 24.04.2025. And/or pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a PDS dealer and has been operating the shop since 2019. Thereafter the inspection has been carried out by the Block Supply Officer on 27.09.2022 and based on the report a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.10.2022 vide memo no. 1411 (Annexure 1) by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bhagalpur. In the said show cause notice, it was alleged that the petitioner is not providing the food grains to the beneficiaries on the right quantity and that the petitioner is charging more price for the food grains than the fixed rate. The petitioner has filed his explanation to the said show cause notice and the beneficiaries have also given a representation to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bhagalpur stating that they are receiving the food grains correctly and that the petitioner is not charging more price for the food grains than fixed. However the authority without taking the same into consideration has passed the impugned order dated 23.11.2022 cancelling the PDS license of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Patna High Court CWJC No.9388 of 2025(4) dt.08-10-2025 3/7 District Magistrate and the same was dismissed and a revision was filed against the orders passed by the District Magistrate before Divisional Commissioner. Both the authorities without considering the facts and the material available on record in a proper perspective and in a mechanical manner affirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Learned counsel submits that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is without any application of mind and passed in a pedantic manner. That out of the 40 beneficiaries who have stated to have made a complaint against the petitioner, almost all the beneficiaries have affirmed that they have no complaint against the petitioner herein. However, the authority without considering their statements has cancelled the PDS license. Counsel has therefore prayed for allowing the CWJC and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner. Learned counsel has relied on the Judgment of this Court passed in CWJC No. 767 of 2019 vide order dated 31.01.2024 in support of his case. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present writ petition and also the prayer Patna High Court CWJC No.9388 of 2025(4) dt.08-10-2025 4/7 sought for in the present writ petition. Learned counsel has stated that the competent authority during inspection has found that there are various discrepancies in the functioning of the PDS shop by the petitioner and submitted his report to the Sub- Divisional Officer. Therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer has taken action duly putting the petitioner on notice, calling for his explanation, giving him an opportunity of hearing and thereafter passing a reasoned order. That the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer has been affirmed by both the appellate as well as the revisional authority and both the authorities having found that there are no infirmities in the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer have dismissed the appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel has stated that the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 23.11.2022, appellate authority dated 25.09.2023 and the revisional authority dated 24.04.2025 are all well reasoned orders and do not require any interference by this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition. 5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer reveals that the authority has taken into consideration the report filed by the Block Supply Patna High Court CWJC No.9388 of 2025(4) dt.08-10-2025 5/7 Officer. The authority while dealing with the case and duly taking note of the fact that there are two allegations made against the petitioner has held that the two charges made against the petitioner have been proved. However it is to be noted that in the very same order the clarification which was sought for it is clearly mentioned that a total of 40 cardholders have made a complaint, out of which, 10 cardholders have stated that they are getting the food grains in the fair price and fair rate and out of the balance 30 cardholders, 3 cardholders did not lift any ration from the shop of the petitioner and the remaining balance 27 cardholders have reiterated that they have not made any complaint against the petitioner. The authority did not take the said said clarification into account and has held that the charges are proved. Even for the sake of arguments even if any adverse statements have being given by the beneficiaries against the petitioner. The authority without testing the veracity or giving an opportunity of cross examining the beneficiaries, who have made the statements, if any, made before the Block Supply Officer cannot hold that the charges against the petitioner have been proved. 6. This Court in CWJC No. 2477 of 2019 vide order dated 29.04.2019 has held as under; Patna High Court CWJC No.9388 of 2025(4) dt.08-10-2025 6/7 "The petitioner submitted his reply along with the affidavit(s) of the consumers but those affidavits were not accepted by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Nimchak Bathani, Gaya saying that those affidavit(s) have been managed. In the opinion of this Court, once the petitioner was able to place on record the affidavit(s) of the consumers, the veracity of the complaint were required to be examined by conducing necessary verification by the Sub- Divisional Officer and only thereupon on independent view of the matter could have been taken. It has not been done in the present case. For these reasons the impugned order is liable to be held bad.” 7. In this particular case also, the respondents- authority has not conducted any inquiry to test the veracity of the complaints made by the consumers nor the petitioner was granted any opportunity to cross-examine the consumers who have made the complaint. Further it is to be noted that the authority has not taken into consideration the representations made by the cardholders attached to the PDS shop of the petitioner wherein it was reiterated that the consumers do not have any complaint against the petitioner. In the absence of any evidence to substantiate the allegations made against the Patna High Court CWJC No.9388 of 2025(4) dt.08-10-2025 7/7 petitioner by independent witnesses or any of the cardholders, the order passed by the authority cancelling the PDS license cannot be sustained and has to be necessarily be held to be bad and liable to be set aside. 8. Having regard to the same, the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 23.11.2022 is set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Revisional Authority are also set aside. The authority is also directed to restore the license of the petitioner forthwith and they are directed to see that the food grains supply to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to distribute the same to the beneficiaries attached to the PDS shop. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Bhardwaj/- (A. Abhishek Reddy , J) U