Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5108-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11357 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mohd. Saddiq Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Dirr. Directorate Of Agrl. Marketing And Agrre. Foreign Trade And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shrikant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Naresh Chandra Mehrotra,Rajesh Kumar Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. On 07.01.2025, the following order was passed:- "1. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate has put in appearance and filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite parties no. 2 and 5 which is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 and 5 says that there is revision prescribed under Section 32 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 against the impugned order. However, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Director, Mandi Samiti has ordered allotment/recording of the names of some of the legal heirs/representatives off the petitioner's father excluding him, in respect of the shop in question in violation of Regulation 10 (6) of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Viniyamawali, 2016 (Second Amendment) - 2018 dated 14.02.2019 in spite of relation certificate having been provided by the District Magistrate containing the name of the petitioner, therefore, considering the nature of dispute and after perusing the Regulation 10 (6), counsel for the Mandi Parishad should seek instructions as to whether it is so and if it is so then under what authority the names of some of the legal heirs/representatives have been included in place of the erstwhile allottee, namely, Abdul Raseed. 3. List on 16.01.2025, as fresh, showing the name of Mr. Rajesh Kumar as counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 and 5. " 2. Today, learned counsel for Mandi Parishad has invited our attention to the order dated 19.02.2008, which is the order granting license, according to which if the proprietor of any Proprietorship firm or licensee dies, then in that event, on submission of a valid succession certificate from a competent Court or Authority along with an application, the licence would be settled/issued in the name of the applicant. 3. Based on the aforesaid order dated 19.02.2008, learned counsel for Mandi Parishad submits that the mother alone had submitted the legal heirship certificate from the District Magistrate with an application for issuance of licence, therefore, it was issued in her name. It is true that the name of the petitioner was also mentioned there but he did not apply in terms of the order dated 19.02.2008. 4. However, learned counsel for petitioner says that infact he had applied for issuance of the licence and this order would automatically stand superseded in view of the subsequent regulations of 2016, which have been referred in the order dated 07.01.2025 quoted hereinabove. 5. On being confronted, the learned counsel for Mandi Parishad did not have any reply much less an acceptable one. However, we find that mother who has been issued the licence has not been arrayed as an opposite party. Nevertheless, considering the facts of the case, let the opposite party no. 2 and/or 5 get the facts verified and consider the application of the petitioner, take a decision thereon, but only after hearing the mother of the petitioner, keeping in mind the regulations of 2016 and such other provisions of law as may be applicable as to the entitlement of the petitioner to be issued the licence consequent to the death of the petitioner's father. 6. A reasoned decision shall be taken within one month of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 DiVYa Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench