IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20542 of 2025 ====================================================== Jagadeesh Paswan @ Jagdish Paswan S/o Madhur Paswan, Resident of Ward No. 11, Khabdah, P.O.-Kannali, P.S.-Narpatganj, District-Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Araria. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Forbesganj, District-Araria. 5. The Block Supply Officer, Narpatganj, District-Araria. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Ms. Anuradha Singh, SC 21. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER 2 27-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “(i) ..….for quashing the order dated 13.09.2022 issued and passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Forbesganj, whereby and whereunder the learned Sub-Divisional Officer Forbesganj has cancelled the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner under Public Distribution System bearing License No. 74N/2016, without considering the sow-cause reply of the petitioner by a cryptic, unreasoned, unexplained order. (ii) Further for direction to the Patna High Court CWJC No.20542 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026 2/8 respondents to restore the license and supply to the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner under Public Distribution System bearing License No. 74N/2016.” 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a PDS dealer belonging to the Scheduled Caste. That the authority has inspected the shop of the petitioner on 08.03.2022 and, thereafter, the SDO has issued the show-cause notice dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure P/1). As per the show-cause notice three allegations were made against the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.05.2022 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, the authority did not take any action for a period of almost three months and issued another show-cause notice dated 27.07.2022 (Annexure P/3) adding two more grounds to the earlier ones. The petitioner has given his reply to the 2nd show-cause notice on 01.09.2022 (Anneuxre P/4), thereafter, the authority has passed the impugend order dated 13.09.2022. Learned counsel submits that the authority while passing the impugned order has added one more ground for cancelling the PDS dealership of the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of filing of his explanation to the newly added allegations. Further, learned counsel has submitted that the authority has not taken into consideration the letter dated 26.11.1994 issued by the Patna High Court CWJC No.20542 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026 3/8 Government of Bihar (Annexure P/7) where the Government of Bihar has taken a decision not to cancel the license of the PDS dealership belongs to the SC/ST Category. Learned counsel submits that the even on merits, the authority has not taken the replies filed by the petitioner into consideration and has simply stated that the explanation filed by the petitioner is not satisfactory. Learned counsel, therefore, prays this Hon’ble Court to set aside the impugned order dated 13.09.2022 and restore the PDS license of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner is having a statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order of cancellation before the District Magistrate and the petitioner may be directed to avail the same. Further, the learned counsel has stated that the authority duly taking into account the serious allegations made against the petitioner has taken a decision to cancel the PDS license of the petitioner and the said order is well reasoned order which does not require any interference by the this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition. Patna High Court CWJC No.20542 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026 4/8 5. Admittedly as seen from the record, the shop of the petitioner was inspected on 08.03.2022 and a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner making three allegations. Thereafter, another show-cause notice is issued to the petitioner where two more allegations have been added. The petitioner has given suitable replies to both the said show-cause notices, however, it is to be noted that the authority while passing the order has added one more ground. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent-State, the same has not been denied. As seen from the I.O., the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to rebut the fresh allegation made against the petitioner. Further, the authority while passing the impugned order of cancellation has stated that the replies filed by the petitioner are not satisfactory. The authority has not passed a reasoned order giving the reasons either for accepting or rejecting the explanations submitted by the petitioner. This Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has depreciated the practice of the quasi-judicial officers or judicial officers not giving the reasons while passing the order and not taking into consideration explanation submitted. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Ltd. and Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan Patna High Court CWJC No.20542 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026 5/8 and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, Para-47 has held as under:- “47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law Patna High Court CWJC No.20542 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026 6/8 and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi- judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi- judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretense of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Patna High Court CWJC No.20542 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026 7/8 Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731- 37] .) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions”. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process.” 7. Further, it is to be noted that the Government of Bihar has issued a memo dated 26.11.1994 (Annexure P/7) which reads as under:- **funs”kkuqlkj mijksDr ftysokj fopkjksijkUr ljdkj }kjk ;g fu.kZ; gS fd vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa tu tkfr ds tu forj.k iz.kkyh foØsrkvksa dks ykbZlsal jn~n fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa ugha dh tk; cfYd muds xyfr;ksa dks fujLr dj fn”kk funsZ”k nsaA** 8. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court has no other option but to allow the Patna High Court CWJC No.20542 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026 8/8 CWJC and set aside the impugned order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Forbesganj and the same is accordingly set aside and the authority is directed to restore the PDS license of the petitioner. The petitioner is hereby warned that, in case, any irregularites are found in the running of the PDS shop or any complaints are made against the petitioner with regard to the distribution of the PDS grains, then the authorities are free to take necessary action strictly in accordance with law. 9. With the above directions, the present writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated. shakir/- (A. Abhishek Reddy, J) U