Facts
The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer under Bhagwanpur Block, Vaishali, challenged the cancellation of his PDS licence by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hajipur, by order dated 26 November 2020.
Source reference: p.1, paras. 1, 5His statutory appeal before the Collector, Vaishali, was dismissed on 12 March 2022, and his revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, was dismissed on 25 April 2023.
Source reference: p.1, paras. 1, 5The petitioner contended that the cancellation was contrary to Clause 29 of the Bihar PDS Control Order, 2016.
Source reference: p.1, para. 1During hearing, both parties submitted that the matter was covered by the Patna High Court’s decision in *Vijendra Singh @ Vijagendra Singh v. The State of Bihar*, C.W.J.C. No. 8339 of 2019, concerning cancellation of a PDS licence merely on account of an FIR.
Source reference: p.2, paras. 2–3Issues
Whether a PDS licence can be cancelled merely on the basis of registration of an FIR or pendency of a criminal case, without a subsequent conviction or an independently sustainable ground under the applicable PDS Control Order.
Source reference: p.3–4, para. 3 of the extracted precedentWhether the orders dated 26 November 2020, 12 March 2022, and 25 April 2023 cancelling the petitioner’s licence and dismissing his appeal and revision were liable to be set aside.
Source reference: p.1, para. 1; p.4–5, paras. 4–6Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of supplies under his PDS licence.
Source reference: p.1, para. 1(D); p.5, para. 5Law Applied
The Court applied the Bihar PDS Control Order, 2016, particularly Clause 29, governing cancellation of PDS licences.
Source reference: p.1, para. 1It relied on the principle recognised in *Vijendra Singh @ Vijagendra Singh v. The State of Bihar* that mere institution of an FIR does not constitute a valid ground for cancellation of a PDS licence, as understood from the PDS (Control) Order, 2001 read with Rule 7 of the notification bearing G.S.R. No. 1 dated 20 February 2007.
Source reference: p.3–4, para. 4 of the extracted precedentThe Court also noted that this position was supported by *Umesh Ram v. The State of Bihar & Ors.*, AIR 2014 Patna 113.
Source reference: p.4, para. 4 of the extracted precedentHowever, if the dealer is subsequently convicted in the criminal case, the authorities may take action in accordance with law.
Source reference: p.4, para. 8 of the extracted precedent; p.5, para. 6Reasoning
The Court found that the legal issue in the present case was identical to that decided in *Vijendra Singh* and, therefore, adopted the same reasoning.
Source reference: p.2–4, paras. 2–3Since mere registration of an FIR or pendency of criminal proceedings does not by itself establish a valid basis for cancellation of a PDS licence, the impugned cancellation and the orders affirming it could not be sustained solely on that basis.
Source reference: p.4, para. 4Applying the binding principle that administrative action affecting the licence must conform to the applicable PDS Control Order, the Court allowed the writ petition in terms of the earlier judgment.
Source reference: p.4, para. 4Holding
The writ petition was allowed.
The orders dated 26 November 2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, dated 12 March 2022 passed by the Collector, Vaishali, and dated 25 April 2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Muzaffarpur, were set aside.
Source reference: p.5, para. 5The authorities were directed to restore the petitioner’s supplies without delay.
Source reference: p.5, para. 5The Court clarified that, if the petitioner is subsequently convicted in the criminal case, the authorities may take appropriate action in accordance with law.
Source reference: p.5, paras. 5–6Any interlocutory application was disposed of.
Source reference: p.5, para. 7Original Court PDF
Sakindra RoyvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
