- (1.) HEARD Sri Salil Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Gaur, learned advocate, appearing for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti.
(2.) THE challenge raised is to the impugned order dated 18.7.2013, whereby the respondent has proceeded to cancel the licence of the petitioners in exercise of powers under Section 17 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Niyamali 1964 read with Rule 71 and 72 of the 1965 Rules framed thereunder. Substantially four grounds of challenge have been raised. The first is that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as 15 days notice has not been given to the petitioners in terms of Rule 72. The second ground is that the same Rule also provides for giving of a personal hearing and the licensee has to be heard in person before the order is passed which was also not observed.
(3.) THE third is that none of the ingredients of Rule 71 have been shown to be available for the purpose of cancellation of the licence. Fourthly, that the show cause notice refers to different charges and in spite of the reply having been given by the petitioners, the impugned order proceeds on different facts altogether. Thus, the reasons given are absolutely foreign to the charges levelled against the petitioners.;