HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10535 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Ms. Shradha Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri U.C. Singh, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Anag Shukla, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of an order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner and Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow dismissing the Revision No.15 of 2025 filed by the petitioner. 3. As this court does not propose to go into the correctness of the pleas of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents have consented for final disposal of the writ petition without their filing any counter affidavit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined her submission to the extent that the petitioner has taken two specific grounds in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the memo of revision, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition, which have not been dealt with in the impugned revisional order. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that the grounds taken in para 4 and 5 of the memo of revision have not been dealt with while deciding the revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the revisional authority has allowed a Revision No.12 of 2025 titled Surendra Kumar and Company vs. Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti which was Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Virendra Mishra, Shradha Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Surendra Kumar Singh M/S Maa Vaishno Fruit And Vegetables Thru. Proprietor Dinesh Kumar Gupta .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agri. U.P. Lko And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) filed on similar grounds whereas the petitioner has been treated in a discriminatory manner. 7. As the pleas taken by the petitioner in the memo of revision have not been dealt with while dismissing the revision, the revisional order becomes unsustainable in law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.09.2025 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the revisional authority- Commissioner and Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow, U.P. for being decided afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after taking into consideration and dealing with all the pleas taken by the petitioner. November 3, 2025 -Amit K- WRIC No. 10535 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench