Natural justice is not violated where the show-cause notice encloses the enquiry report.

The appellant was the licensee of a Fair Price Shop in Gram Panchayat Khaira, Shahkund Block, Bhagalpur, under Licence No. 23 of 2016.

Following an inspection on 5 July 2018, the Block Supply Officer reported several irregularities, including non-display of information and price boards, non-maintenance of registers, failure to issue cash memos, irregular distribution of foodgrains and kerosene oil, and failure to maintain relevant stock registers.

The Sub-Divisional Officer issued a show-cause notice dated 23 July 2018, expressly stating that a copy of the enquiry report was enclosed.

The appellant submitted his reply on 7 August 2018 but did not allege non-supply of the enquiry report.

Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelled his licence by a reasoned order dated 1 October 2018.

The appellant’s statutory appeal before the Collector was dismissed on 22 August 2020, and his revision before the Divisional Commissioner was dismissed on 23 August 2022.

His writ petition challenging these orders was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 24 April 2023, leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal.

1. Whether the appellant’s Fair Price Shop licence was cancelled in violation of the principles of natural justice on the ground that the enquiry report had not been supplied to him?

2. Whether the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Collector, Divisional Commissioner and the learned Single Judge suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction?

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a person proceeded against must receive notice of the allegations and a meaningful opportunity to submit an explanation, including access to the material relied upon against him.

The Court also considered the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, governing the functioning and regulation of Fair Price Shops.

It further applied the principle that judicial review does not warrant interference with concurrent, reasoned findings of competent authorities unless there is procedural illegality, violation of natural justice, or manifest error.

The show-cause notice and the appellant’s response were treated as material evidence of compliance with procedural fairness.

The Court held that the appellant’s principal challenge was factually unfounded.

The show-cause notice expressly recorded that the enquiry report was enclosed, and the appellant’s detailed reply dated 7 August 2018 addressed the allegations without asserting that the report had not been supplied.

The Court therefore found that the plea of non-supply was an afterthought and had not been substantiated.

The appellant had also been given an opportunity to explain the alleged irregularities, and his case was considered through three successive, reasoned orders passed by the licensing authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority.

Since the authorities found the irregularities proved and the appellant failed to present a credible defence, the Court concluded that there was no breach of natural justice or other ground for judicial or appellate interference.

It held that the enquiry report had been supplied along with the show-cause notice, that adequate opportunity of hearing had been granted, and that the plea of violation of natural justice was an unsubstantiated afterthought.

Finding no infirmity in the learned Single Judge’s order dated 24 April 2023 or in the underlying orders dated 1 October 2018, 22 August 2020 and 23 August 2022, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal as devoid of merit.