SATYA POOT MEHROTRA,HET SINGH YADAV,JJ. - (1.) HEARD Shri K.D. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Shri C.S.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner was granted licence under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (in short "the 1964 Adhiniyam"). By the order dated 5.7.2012, the licence of the petitioner was suspended in exercise of power under clause (ii) of section 17 of the 1964 Adhiniyam. The impugned order dated 5.7.2012 required the petitioner to submit his explanation/ reply within 15 days of the receipt of the said order. It is averred in the Writ Petition that in response to the said order dated 5.7.2012, the petitioner submitted its explanation/ reply on 18.7.2012, but the respondent No. 2 has not taken any decision in the matter of the petitioner, pursuant to the said Order dated 5.7.2012.
(3.) SHRI C.S.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on the basis of instructions received by him, states that the explanation/ reply, stated to have been submitted by the petitioner on 18.7.2012, has not been received in the Office of the respondent No. 2, and in the circumstances, the matter has not, as yet, been decided. Shri Singh, however, states that the petitioner may submit a fresh explanation/ reply in response to the impugned order dated 5.7.2012 within the period fixed by this Court and on receipt of such explanation/ reply, the respondent No. 2 will decide the matter expeditiously.;