Facts
The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer (License No. 43/85), had his license cancelled on 30.06.2014 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Lakhisarai, on allegations of failing to lift kerosene and foodgrains for one year
Source reference: p. 2After his appeal and revision were dismissed, the High Court (CWJC No. 2794 of 2022) set aside the cancellation and remitted the matter for fresh consideration
Source reference: p. 2-3On remand, the petitioner filed a show-cause reply on 06.05.2022, explaining that the non-lifting was due to the Block Supply Officer stopping allotments, not intentional neglect
Source reference: p. 3the SDO passed a fresh order on 06.05.2022, again cancelling the license without addressing the petitioner's specific defense
Source reference: p. 3-4The respondent authorities failed to file a counter-affidavit, citing missing records
Source reference: p. 1-2Issues
1. Whether the SDO, Lakhisarai, passed the impugned cancellation order dated 06.05.2022 in compliance with the principles of natural justice and the previous directions of the High Court
Source reference: p. 3-42. Whether the cancellation of a PDS license is sustainable when the alleged non-lifting of commodities was due to the department's own failure to issue allotments
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which mandates a specific show-cause notice proposing cancellation
Source reference: p. 5Division Bench precedent in Ram Bachan Ram v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2018 (4) PLJR 516) regarding the necessity of proper notice
Source reference: p. 6Co-ordinate Bench decision in Pawa Pacs v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 3905 of 2019), which held that authorities cannot mechanically reiterate previous cancellation orders after a remand without fresh, lawful consideration
Source reference: p. 6Reasoning
The Court observed that the SDO failed to record any finding that the petitioner's failure to lift foodgrains was "deliberate" or "intentional"
Source reference: p. 3-4the authority ignored the petitioner’s explanation that allotments had been stopped by the Block Supply Officer
Source reference: p. 4Relying on the Pawa Pacs precedent, the Court reasoned that the SDO’s failure to issue a fresh show-cause notice proposing cancellation and the failure to consider the petitioner’s specific factual defense rendered the order arbitrary and legally unsustainable
Source reference: p. 5-7The Court noted that the authority had not acted in accordance with the spirit of the previous remand order, as the impugned order took into consideration irrelevant facts and lacked application of mind
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 06.05.2022
It held that the issues were squarely covered by the Pawa Pacs judgment and directed that the petitioner’s PDS license be restored immediately
Source reference: p. 7The matter was remitted back to the SDO, Lakhisarai, to proceed afresh in accordance with the law within 90 days of receipt of the order
Source reference: p. 7-8All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
Bal Krishna JhavsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in