Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court recently addressed the case of a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer from Sitamarhi district whose dealership licence had been abruptly cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Pupri.
On 14 May 2020, the SDO issued Memo No. 271 in Case No. 05/2020, cancelling the petitioner’s licence (Licence No. 08/2003) under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The cancellation was made under clause 25(1)(Ka)(Kha)(Ga)(Gha).
The petitioner challenged this decision before the High Court, arguing that:
- He was given only three days to file his show-cause reply, which was unreasonably short.
- He actually filed his reply on 13 May 2020, but the order cancelling his licence was passed the very next day (14 May 2020).
- The cancellation order violated principles of natural justice and failed to give him sufficient opportunity to defend himself.
The petitioner relied on a precedent: Smt. Fulpati Devi v. State of Bihar, 2013 (1) PLJR 718, where the High Court had quashed a similar order because the SDO acted in “hot haste,” allowing only three days for response and cancelling the licence without confirming whether notice was properly served.
The Court found the petitioner’s argument convincing. Justice Vikash Jain observed that in disciplinary proceedings like licence cancellation, reasonable opportunity of hearing must be provided. Merely granting three days to file a reply and then passing the cancellation order without fair consideration was inadequate and unjust.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the SDO’s order dated 14.05.2020 and remanded the matter back to the SDO with directions to:
- Issue a fresh and proper show-cause notice.
- Provide reasonable time and opportunity to the petitioner.
- Take a new decision in accordance with law after considering the petitioner’s explanation.
Importantly, the Court also ordered that supplies to the petitioner must be restored immediately until fresh orders are passed.
This judgment thus restored the dealer’s right to continue operating under the PDS system, at least until a fresh lawful decision is taken.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- For PDS Dealers: The decision emphasizes that licences cannot be cancelled in haste. Adequate time and proper hearing must be given. Dealers can rely on this judgment to challenge arbitrary actions.
- For Authorities: SDOs and other officials must ensure that due process is followed. Acting hastily without confirming service of notice can render their decisions invalid.
- For Beneficiaries: Ensures continuity of ration supply under PDS, as abrupt cancellations disrupt essential food distribution in villages and towns.
- For Legal Precedent: Reinforces the principle that natural justice—notice and fair hearing—must always be respected in administrative decisions.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning
- Whether three days’ time to file show cause in a PDS licence cancellation case is reasonable?
Decision: No. The Court held that granting only three days was insufficient and against natural justice. - Whether the cancellation order dated 14.05.2020 was valid?
Decision: No. The order was set aside for being passed hastily and without fair hearing. - What remedy did the Court grant?
Decision: The matter was remanded to the SDO for fresh decision with proper notice. The petitioner’s supplies were ordered to be restored in the meantime.
Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)
- Smt. Fulpati Devi v. State of Bihar, 2013 (1) PLJR 718 — cancellation order quashed where SDO acted in haste, allowed only three days for reply, and ignored fair procedure.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)
- The Court relied primarily on Smt. Fulpati Devi (2013) precedent.
Case Title
Nathuni Mehtar v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8007 of 2020
Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 196
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikash Jain
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Amrit Abhijat — for the petitioner
- Mr. U.P. Singh, AC to SC-4 — for the State
Link to Judgment
MTUjODAwNyMyMDIwIzEjTg==-97DA0UNT75s=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
