Mahendra Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12798 of 2025 ====================================================== Mahendra Paswan, Son of Kuldip Paswan, Resident of Village- Bhadeya, Village Panchayat- Bibipesar, P.S- Barachatti, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Food and Consumers Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate, Gaya.

3.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sherghati, Gaya.

4.

The Block Supply Officer, Barachatti, Gaya.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Standing Counsel (08).

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER 02-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "...for the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions to quash the order dated 07.02.2025 contained in Memo No. 80 by which the Ld. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sherghati (Gaya) cancelled the PDS License No. 01/2022 of the petitioner contrary to rule 28 & 29 of the Bihar Targeted PDS. (Control) order, 2016 only on the ground of FIR lodged in Barachaatti P.S. Case No. 331/2024 and for direction upon the respondent No. 3 to continue allocation to the Public Distribution System Shop of the petitioner after declaring the cancellation order null and void."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12798 of 2025(2) dt.02-09-2025 2/3 solitary ground given in the order dated 07.02.2025 vide Memo No. 80 for cancellation of the PDS licence of the petitioner was that an First Information Report (F.I.R.) bearing Barachaatti P.S. Case No. 331 of 2024 had been instituted against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard.

5. Having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court finds merit in the writ petition. A perusal of the PDS (Control) Order, 2001 read with Rule 7 of the notification in G.S.R. No. 1 dated 20.02.2007 makes it clear that mere institution of a First Information Report would not constitute a valid ground for suspension of the PDS licence. This view finds support from the decision of this Court in Umesh Ram vs. The State of Bihar and others, AIR 2014 Patna 113 as well.

6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sherghati, Gaya is set aside.

7. Needless to say, supplies to the petitioner shall be restored without delay.

8. It is made clear that, in case, the petitioner is subsequently convicted in the criminal case instituted against him, the authorities are free to take necessary action in accordance with law.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12798 of 2025(2) dt.02-09-2025 3/3

9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated.

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J) Bhardwaj/- U