Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court reinforced the importance of natural justice in administrative decisions concerning the Public Distribution System (PDS). The Court set aside an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Sadar, Madhubani, who had cancelled the PDS license of a dealer on allegations of irregularities.
The petitioner was a licensed dealer under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. On 16 May 2020, the Block Supply Officer inspected the petitioner’s shop and reported several alleged irregularities. These included:
- Shop found closed.
- Weights and measures license invalid.
- Absence of display board with mandatory details.
- Foodgrains not distributed at government-prescribed rates and quantities.
- Rations being given for two months at once.
- Misbehaviour with beneficiaries.
Based on this, a show cause notice dated 16 June 2020 was issued, giving the petitioner only 48 hours to respond. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27 June 2020. However, without supplying him with the inspection report or statements from beneficiaries, the SDO cancelled the license on 22 August 2020.
The petitioner challenged this cancellation before the High Court, arguing that the action was arbitrary, pre-decided, and violative of natural justice. His main grievance was that the documents relied upon (inspection report, beneficiary complaints/statements) were never given to him, making it impossible to defend himself properly.
The State argued that the petitioner had violated the Control Order and caused suffering to poor beneficiaries during the Covid-19 pandemic. They further contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the Control Order and that the Court should not exercise writ jurisdiction.
The Court, however, found merit in the petitioner’s case. It observed that under Clause 27(ii) of the Control Order, no license can be cancelled without giving the dealer sufficient opportunity to defend. Such opportunity must include providing all allegations and supporting materials. Since neither the inspection report nor the beneficiary statements were provided, the principle of natural justice was violated.
The Court further reiterated that although alternative remedies exist, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised where principles of natural justice are violated. Relying on earlier rulings, the Court held that this was one such case.
As a result, the order cancelling the license was quashed, and the petitioner was entitled to restoration of his PDS license. However, the authorities were given liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law if they so desired.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
For PDS Dealers
This judgment safeguards fair procedure. Dealers cannot be penalized without being supplied with inspection reports, complaints, or evidence against them. They must be given adequate time and documents to defend themselves.
For Beneficiaries and Public
While ensuring transparency in PDS operations, the Court balanced fairness to dealers. The ruling prevents arbitrary actions by authorities while keeping open the possibility of lawful proceedings against errant dealers.
For Government Authorities
The judgment is a strong reminder that administrative orders affecting rights must comply with natural justice. Even in urgent situations like the pandemic, principles of fairness cannot be bypassed. Authorities must ensure due process before cancelling licenses.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether cancellation of PDS license without supplying inspection report and complaints violates natural justice?
- Decision: Yes. The cancellation order was set aside as violative of natural justice.
- Whether availability of alternative remedy bars writ jurisdiction?
- Decision: No. The High Court clarified that writ jurisdiction can be exercised where natural justice is violated, even if an alternative remedy exists.
- What relief was granted?
- Decision: The PDS license cancellation order was quashed. The petitioner’s license was restored, though authorities may proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- None specifically cited by petitioner recorded in the order.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Nagendra Prasad Gupta v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 8769 of 2020 (Patna High Court) – reiterating circumstances where writ jurisdiction can be exercised despite alternative remedies.
- Union of India v. Tantia Construction (P) Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 697.
- M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. Jahan Khan, (2007) 10 SCC 88.
- L.K. Verma v. H.M.T. Ltd., (2006) 2 SCC 269.
Case Title
Pradip Kumar Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8449 of 2020
Citation(s)
To be added manually
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the petitioner: Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha
- For the State: Mr. Prashan Pratap, GP-2
Link to Judgment
MTUjODQ0OSMyMDIwIzEjTg==-6v2nr00BgSM=
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.
