Facts
The petitioner held a fertilizer retail license (No. 34/2019-22) issued by the District Agriculture Officer (DAO), Nawada
Source reference: p.2On 13.08.2022, authorities inspected the petitioner’s shop and found 106 bags of Urea despite the POS machine showing only 62 bags, alongside failures to maintain the notice board and supply registers
Source reference: p.4A show-cause notice was issued via mobile phone message on the same day, granting 48 hours to reply
Source reference: p.2, 5Upon the petitioner's failure to respond within 17 days, the DAO cancelled the license vide Memo No. 1958 dated 02.09.2022
Source reference: p.6The petitioner challenged this cancellation, alleging a violation of natural justice as the notice was never served and the order was unreasoned
Source reference: p.3Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s fertilizer license without a physical hearing but following a digital show-cause notice violated the principles of natural justice.
Source reference: p.6-72. Whether digital communication (WhatsApp/SMS) constitutes valid service of notice in administrative proceedings.
Source reference: p.7Law Applied
The court applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the doctrine of audi alteram partem (right to be heard)
Source reference: p.7Digital modes of communication, including WhatsApp and mobile messaging, constitute valid modes of service under administrative and regulatory frameworks when receipt is established
Source reference: p.7The court distinguished the precedent in CWJC No. 12160 of 2021, noting that judicial interference is warranted only when an order is unreasoned or cryptic, not when a party deliberately non-cooperates
Source reference: p.6-7Reasoning
The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on previous Division Bench rulings, noting that while those cases involved "unreasoned" and "cryptic" orders, the current case involved a petitioner who exhibited "deliberate and complete non-cooperation"
Source reference: p.6-7The Court found that the respondents provided a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend, as the notice was served digitally and the petitioner remained silent for 17 days before the final order was passed
Source reference: p.7The Court reasoned that since the digital service was valid and the petitioner chose not to respond, he could not subsequently claim a violation of the right to be heard
Source reference: p.7No jurisdictional error or perversity was found in the DAO’s order
Source reference: p.7-8Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no violation of natural justice as valid digital service was effected
The final order dated 02.09.2022 was upheld. However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to prefer a statutory appeal before the appropriate Appellate Authority within one month, directing the Authority to hear the matter on its merits and pass a reasoned order within three months
Source reference: p.8Original Court PDF
Ranjan KumarvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in