HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9967 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Dr. Lalta Prasad Misra along with Shri Digvijay Nath Dubey and Ms. Jaya Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Shri Tushar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State- respondents and Shri Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 17.07.2025 passed by the Deputy Director (Administration & Marketing) being the respondent No.3 and the consequential order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti being the respondent No.4. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has made several submissions with regard to the illegality of the orders that have been passed by both the authorities. According to him, the order is required to be passed by the Director when any dispute is raised by the petitioners as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. 4. Upon consideration of the entire factual matrix, we are of the view that the Director had made a note to the Secretary to decide the matter and subsequently, the Secretary had passed the order. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lalta Prasad Misra, Digvijay Nath Dubey, Jaya Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Surendra Kumar Singh M/S Dayal Paradise Thru. Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh Now Rajesh Singh Dayal And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Agri. Marketing Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that impugned orders may be challenged before the Director (Mandi Parishad). 6. Upon consideration of the terms and conditions, we find that it is the Director who is to take the final decision in any event of any dispute being raised by the petitioners. 7. In light of the same, the Director is directed to examine the case of the petitioners ignoring the orders passed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4. The Director should apply his own mind and de novo pass orders on the representation made by the petitioners with regard to the extension in accordance with law. 8. The petitioners shall be at liberty to file a fresh representation within a period of two days from date and thereafter, the decision should be taken by 04.11.2025. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the disputes raised by the petitioners and the Director should independently decide the matter in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. October 16, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/- WRIC No. 9967 of 2025 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench