Facts
The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) license holder (License No. 22/2016) in Bhagalpur, received a show-cause notice on 02.04.2018 alleging irregularities, including the shop being closed during inspection, lack of a notice board, overcharging, and improper ration card entries
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 13.04.2018 denying the allegations
Source reference: p. 3Subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Sadar, Bhagalpur, issued an order on 19.04.2018 cancelling the petitioner’s license
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner challenged this order via a writ of certiorari, contending the order was non-speaking, failed to consider his reply, and violated principles of natural justice
Source reference: pp. 1-4Issues
1. Whether the cancellation order dated 19.04.2018 was legally sustainable given the alleged lack of reasoned findings and non-consideration of the petitioner’s explanation
Source reference: p. 3, para. 32. Whether the original licensing authority can pass a summary order without addressing the specific merits of the show-cause reply
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4Law Applied
The court relied on the principles of natural justice and administrative law as established in Pinki Kumari @ Pinki Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 21135 of 2021), Arun Singh @ Arun Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors (CWJC No. 9309 of 2020), and Raghuvir Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2015(2) PLJR 910)
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4These precedents establish that a licensing authority must pass a reasoned order; a failure to apply one's mind to the licensee's explanation constitutes a "manifest original defect" that cannot be cured by appellate proceedings
Source reference: p. 5-6, para. 7The court further cited Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna (1986 (4) SCC 537) to emphasize that original proceedings must ensure fundamental procedural fairness
Source reference: p. 5, para. 7Reasoning
The Court observed that the impugned order passed by the SDO was "non-speaking" and reflected a total lack of application of mind to the specific explanations offered by the petitioner in his reply dated 13.04.2018
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3By comparing the facts to the ruling in Pinki Kumari, the Court noted that the licensing authority is mandated to pass a reasoned order after considering the context of the petitioner’s reply
Source reference: p. 6-7, para. 7The Court found that because the original authority failed to record findings on which specific conditions of the license or Control Order were violated, the order was arbitrary and in violation of statutory provisions
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3Consistent with the cited precedents, the Court determined that the matter required a fresh adjudication to rectify the procedural lapse of passing a summary cancellation order without evaluating the evidence
Source reference: p. 8, para. 8Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 19.04.2018 (Memo No. 266) cancelling the petitioner’s PDS license
Following the directions in the Pinki Kumari case, the matter was effectively remanded to the Licensing Authority to initiate a fresh process, requiring the authority to pass a reasoned order after giving the petitioner a fresh opportunity to be heard, within a stipulated timeline
Source reference: p. 6-7, para. 7All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of
Source reference: p. 8, para. 9Original Court PDF
Abhay Kumar PandeyvsThe State Of Bihar and Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in