Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140957-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27381 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Buddh Trading Company Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Raj Counsel for Respondent :- Archit Mandhyan,C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Singh Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent no.1 & 4 and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following relief:- "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the respondent no.3-Secretary, Krishi Uptadan Mandi Samiti, Varanasi having letter No. कक o उ o म o स o/2025-1139. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 passed by respondent No.3-Secretary, Krishi Uptadan Mandi Samiti, Varanasi having letter No.कक o उ o म o स o ववरवo/2025-1080. (iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful and uninterrupted exclusive possession of the petitioner in Godown No.2 situated in Lal Bahadur Shastri Nagar, Navin Mandi Sthaul, Pahariya, District Varanasi in pursuance of the impugned orders. (iv) to issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (v) to award cost of the petition in this petition" 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a license holder of Mandi Samiti and has been using a Godown No.3 at Mandi Samiti, Varanasi since 2004. It is contended that the Mandi Samiti has issued a recovery of Rs.12,89,832/- which is exorbitant, and has been issued without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is submitted that the recovery issued by the Mandi Samiti dated 20.6.2025 is illegal and cannot be sustained. 4. Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 submits that since the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of the Godown and has not paid the rent since the date of his occupation, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. However, despite his best efforts, he could not demonstrate that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the order of recovery. 5. Be that as it may, the order impugned is an order of recovery which entails civil consequence inasmuch as the petitioner has been asked to pay an amount of Rs.12,89,832/- for the use and occupation of the Godown since 2004. 6. In view of the aforesaid fact, it is expected that the respondents should have issued a notice and should have granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the order of recovery. In such view of the fact, the order of recovery dated 20.06.2025 passed by respondent no.3 is set aside with liberty to respondent no.3 to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observations,the writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 NS (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad