District Magistrate directed to decide petitioner’s representation by a reasoned order after hearing.

The petitioner held PDS Licence No. 23040012/16, dated 17 August 2016.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, West Muzaffarpur, cancelled the licence by Memo No. 1344 dated 22 November 2018.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation, alleging that the enquiry report and relied-upon documents were not supplied, his show-cause reply was not considered, and no effective opportunity of hearing was granted, in violation of the principles of natural justice.

During hearing, the petitioner limited his request to permission to file a representation before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, with a direction for its time-bound disposal.

The State respondents did not oppose this limited prayer.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to submit a representation/application before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, concerning cancellation of his PDS licence.

Whether the District Magistrate should be directed to dispose of the representation after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether the High Court should determine the legality, merits, or maintainability of the challenge to the cancellation order at this stage.

The Court applied the procedural principle that where a petitioner seeks limited administrative reconsideration and the respondent authorities have no objection, the writ petition may be disposed of by granting liberty to submit a representation and directing the competent authority to decide it within a prescribed period.

The authority must provide an effective opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order, consistent with the principles of natural justice.

The Court expressly declined to adjudicate the merits or maintainability of the writ petition.

The Court did not examine whether the cancellation of the PDS licence was legally valid or whether the alleged denial of the enquiry report and hearing had in fact occurred.

Since the petitioner confined his request to administrative reconsideration and the respondents raised no objection, the Court considered it appropriate to grant liberty to approach the District Magistrate.

To ensure procedural fairness, it directed the District Magistrate to hear the petitioner and issue a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the representation.

By doing so, the Court preserved all questions concerning the merits and maintainability of the original challenge.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation/application before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, within 15 days from receipt of the order.

If filed within that period, the District Magistrate was directed to decide it within three months, after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits or maintainability of the writ petition, and all pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of.