Patna High Court
Santosh Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar on 6 August, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.711 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3350 of 2023
======================================================
Santosh Kumar Mandal S/o Late Shiv Narayan Mandal, resident of Village
and P.S. - Tikapatti, District - Purnea.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea.
3. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Purnea.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhamdaha, Purnea.
5. The District Supply Officer, Purnea.
6. The Block Supply Office, Rupauli, Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Indrajeet Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5
Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 06-08-2025
Heard Mr. Bhola Prasad, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, learned AAG-5 for the
respondents.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Clause-X
of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court Rules against the order
dated 21.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby
the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.711 of 2023 dt.06-08-2025
2/6
present appellant/petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended
that the present appellant is the original writ petitioner, who had
preferred the captioned petition before this Court. In the said
petition, the appellant/petitioner challenged the order dated
04.02.2012
passed by the S.D.O., Dhamdaha, whereby P.D.S.
licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. It is also submitted
that the said order passed by the S.D.O. was challenged by filing
appeal before the Collector, Purnea by filing Supply Appeal
no.45 of 2012. It is submitted that the petitioner, therefore,
challenged the order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the Collector,
Purnea. The petitioner also challenged the order dated
12.12.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea in
Supply Revision No. 42 of 2017 whereby the revision
application submitted by the appellant/petitioner came to be
dismissed, thereby the revisional authority confirmed the orders
passed by both the lower authorities. The petitioner, therefore,
challenged the aforesaid three orders by filing the captioned
petition.
4. Learned counsel would mainly contend that the
learned Single Judge committed an error by not appreciating the
fact that the concerned respondent authority did not supply the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.711 of 2023 dt.06-08-2025
copy of the inspection report nor they had supplied the
statement given by the so called beneficiaries, who had given
the statement against the petitioner. Learned counsel, therefore,
urged that the respondent authorities violated the principles of
natural justice. However, the learned Single Judge has not
properly considered the said important aspect.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant thereafter
contended that the learned Single Judge has mainly considered
the fact that there are concurrent findings of fact arrived at by
the concerned authorities which do not show any perversity and,
therefore, on that ground the petition filed by the petitioner has
been dismissed. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that, on the
ground of violation of principle of natural justice, the learned
Single Judge ought to have allowed the petition and thereby
ought to have quashed and set aside all the three impugned
orders passed by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel,
therefore, urged that this appeal be allowed and impugned order
be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the present
appeal. He would mainly contend that there are concurrent
findings of facts recorded by the respondent authorities and as
Patna High Court L.P.A No.711 of 2023 dt.06-08-2025
there is no perversity learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed
the petition. It is further submitted that while giving reply to the
show cause notice issued by the authorities, the petitioner had
not demanded any document. It is further submitted that, on the
contrary, the petitioner admitted two irregularities while giving
his reply. Thus, no error has been committed by the respondent
authorities while passing the impugned orders and, therefore,
also the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while
dismissing the petition. He, therefore, urged that this appeal be
dismissed.
7. We have considered the submissions canvassed by
learned advocates and perused the materials placed on record. It
is required to be observed at the outset that the petitioner has not
produced the copy of the show cause dated 27.12.2011 and the
reply given by the petitioner to the said show cause. However,
during the course of hearing of the present appeal, learned counsel
for the appellant has supplied the copies of the aforesaid two
documents. We have gone through the show cause notice issued
by the concerned respondent authorities and the reply given by
the petitioner of the said notice. From the aforesaid documents,
it transpires that the petitioner has admitted in his reply with
regard to the first two irregularities alleged by the respondent
Patna High Court L.P.A No.711 of 2023 dt.06-08-2025
authorities. However, so far as the third irregularity alleged by
the respondent authority is concerned, the petitioner has merely
denied the said allegation, however, if the reply given by the
petitioner is carefully examined, it is revealed that he has not, in
fact, demanded any document from the respondent authority nor
he has requested for supply of the enquiry report.
8. We have gone through the relevant provisions
contained in Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001
and more particularly Clause- 7 (1) (a) thereof. We are of the
view that the concerned respondent authority has rightly
exercised the powers vested in him under the said clause and
thereby cancelled the licence issued in favour of the petitioner.
Certain irregularities were found, as stated in the show cause
notice. We are of the view that, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the
respondents have violated the principles of natural justice, as
contended by learned counsel for the appellant.
9. We have also gone through the impugned orders
passed by the respondent authorities. We are of the view that
when there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the
respondent authorities and as there is no perversity or
arbitrariness in the said orders, the learned Single Judge has not
Patna High Court L.P.A No.711 of 2023 dt.06-08-2025
committed any error while rejecting the petition filed by the
appellant. Accordingly, no interference is required in the present
appeal.
10. The letters patent appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
11. I.A(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
shiv/Bibhash
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 08.08.2025
Transmission Date NA
