Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22814 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3680 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Haryana Grain Agency Thru. Manager,Shri Mukesh Gupta And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipdan Evam Krishi Videsh Vyapar Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sridhar Awasthi,Akhilesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Naresh Chandra Mehrotra,Surendra Kumar Singh AND Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3692 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Pawan Trading Company Thru. Manager Shri Mahesh Gupta And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipdan Evam Krishi Videsh Vyapar Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sridhar Awasthi,Akhilesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Naresh Chandra Mehrotra,Surendra Kumar Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sridhar Awasthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri Surendra Kumar Singh, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite parties no.2 to 5. The Vakalatnama is taken on record. 2. As common questions of law and facts arise in both the writ petitions and as such both are being decided by means of this common judgment. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioners claimed to have granted a license of proprietorship firm by the respondent- authority. Subsequently, on account of allegations levelled, show case notice was served upon the petitioners to submit reply. The petitioners sought documents proposed to be relied upon against the petitioners. As according to the petitioners, the papers are not illegible, a response was written by the respondent-authority that they can come and verify the documents and they were given the last opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice. The order impugned dated 29.12.2023 came to be passed recording that no reply was submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice even after giving opportunity, as such, the order came to be passed cancelling the license granted to the petitioner by the respondents. The petitioner preferred an appeal and apart from the other grounds specifically pleaded that no opportunity of hearing was granted, which is incumbent to be granted in view of the prescriptions contained in Rule 72 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. The said appeal filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2025. Challenging both the orders, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The neat submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the provisions contained under Section 17(ii) of the Act, it is only the Market Committee, which has the power to cancel the license and even in terms of the proviso to the said section, only the power to 'suspend' can be delegated and the power to 'cancel' cannot be delegated. The Counsel for the petitioner further argues on the foundation of Rule 72 that before cancellation of the license, an opportunity is required to be given, which also includes an opportunity of oral hearing. In the present case neither the opportunity of oral hearing was accorded by the authority prior to passing of the cancellation order nor was the same passed by the authority empower to cancel the license. 5. On the same limited submission, the Counsel for the respondent was called upon. He submits that from the order impugned, there appears to be no reasoning/statement that any opportunity of hearing was granted. He however argues that the petitioners were granted opportunity of hearing at the time of appellate stage. 6. Considering the said submissions, the law with regard to following the principles of natural justice including grant of hearing by the first authority is fairly well settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs CCE; (2015) 8 SCC 519, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that if there is a prescriptions for grant of opportunity of hearing, no stand can be taken that the hearing at the appellate stage would suffice the requirement of following the principles of natural justice. 7. Finding that the order impugned has been passed without granting the mandatory hearing as prescribed under Rule 72 of the Act by the first authority and following the judgment in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited (Supra), both the orders dated 29.12.2023 and 19.03.2025 passed in both the writ petitions cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. 8. The matter is remanded back to the authority concerned for passing fresh order in accordance with law with all expedition preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. 9. The petitioners would be at liberty to plead the lack of jurisdiction in reply to the show cause notice and also would be entitled to argue the same at the time of grant of personal hearing. The petitioners would be also at liberty to plead such thing as may be advised under law. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench