5-WP-3507-2016.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3507 OF 2016 M/S. Bharat Agro Services Through Proprietor, Mr.Rameshbhai Patel … Petitioner Vs. Agricultural Development Officer And Notified And Concerned Authority, Zilla Parishad And Anr. … Respondents Mr. Ashish Gabhale i/b Jay & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Madhubala Kajle, ‘B’ Panel for the State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 4th DECEMBER 2025 ORDER: 1. This petition is filed to challenge the concurrent orders passed by the competent authority and the appellate authority under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 confirming cancellation of the license issued to the petitioner for distribution and sale of commodities under the Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an appeal to challenge the order of cancellation of licence. The appellate authority had remanded the matter back to the competent authority for rehearing. However, after rehearing, the Page no. 1 of 3 MJ Jadhav MANGALTAI JAYWANT JADHAV Digitally signed by MANGALTAI JAYWANT JADHAV Date: 2025.12.05 17:58:55 +0530 5-WP-3507-2016.doc same order is passed. The said order was also challenged by way of an appeal and the appellate authority has confirmed the order of cancellation of the licnese. He submits that the appellate authority has mainly dismissed the appeal on the ground that criminal prosecution is initiated against the petitioner. However, the appellate authority has not examined the grievances made by the petitioner. He therefore submits that the impugned order would warrant interference by this Court. 3. I have perused the papers of the petition. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner based on the panchnama recorded at the time of inspection. The petitioner has not responded to the show cause notice. Based on the panchnama and the relevant record, the competent authority held that the petitioner has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the licence, by selling the commodities on a higher price and by not maintaining the record as per the Rules. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had any time challenged the panchnama. The appellate authority after examining the record has confirmed the cancellation of licence by relying upon the relevant record and the panchnama recorded at the time of inspection. Pendency of the criminal prosecution is one of the additional grounds considered by the appellate authority to confirm the cancellation of the licence. Page no. 2 of 3 5-WP-3507-2016.doc There is no legality or perversity in the reasons recorded by the competent authority and the appellate authority warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 3 of 3