HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 32764 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent Mandi Samiti states that he has received notice today in the Court being a panel counsel on the instruction of the Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have assailed the order/notice dated 30.08.2025 issued by the respondent no.2-Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Varanasi, by which the petitioners have been directed to vacate the shop No.C-71 within three days from the date of notice. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no.1 is a partnership firm and has been allotted the shop No.C-71. The petitioner Nos.2 & 4 became partners of the firm and their induction in the firm has been duly approved by the Mandi Samiti by order dated 23.09.2014. Thereafter, the original partner, namely, Narayan Prasad Sonkar withdrew himself from partnership after settling the account with the other partners, which was also approved by the Mandi Samiti by order dated 03.07.2024, copy of which is appearing at page-61 of the paper book. The petitioner nos.2 & 4 are the partners of the firm of petitioner no.1 which has been duly approved by the Mandi Samiti, therefore, they are lawful allottee of the shop. 5. Challenging the impugned notice, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the shop in question has been allotted in the name of the petitioner no.1 firm which is still existing and the petitioner nos.2 and 4 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Kumar, Himanshu Bansal, Shivam Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Narayan Prasad Dinesh Kumar & Company And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) have been inducted in the firm which was duly approved by the order dated 23.09.2014. It is submitted that the petitioners firm licence to remain in possession of the shop is up till 2040, therefore, the petitioners cannot be evicted except in accordance with law, and their term of licence cannot be curtailed without following due procedure of law. It is further stated that the impugned notice is based upon incorrect facts on the complaint of one Santosh Sonkar who is the son of the erstwhile partner namely, Late Narayan Prasad Sonkar, who has no concern now with the firm. It is submitted that the impugned notice has been issued without giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and in such view of the fact, the impugned notice cannot be sustained in law. It is further submitted that though the letter dated 30.08.2025 is titled as 'notice' but in fact it is an order directing the petitioner to vacate the shop in question without following the due procedure of law. 6. Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent Mandi Samiti would contend that since the complaint has been moved by Sri Santosh Kumar Sonkar, and according to the complaint, the petitioners have encroached upon the shop in question, therefore, the impugned notice has been rightly issued. 7. Be that as it may, the record reveals that the firm of petitioner no.1 has been allotted the shop in question up till 2040. The record further reveals that the petitioner nos. 2 and 4 became the partners of the firm and their induction as partners has been duly approved by the Mandi Samiti by order dated 23.09.2014. The record further reveals that the original partner, namely, Late Narayan Prasad Sonkar withdrew from the partnership after settling the account with the other partners of the firm, which was duly approved by the Mandi Samiti by order dated 03.07.2024, therefore, the petitioners being the partners of the firm of petitioner no.1 cannot be evicted except in accordance with law, and thus, the impugned order/notice has been issued without giving any due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we permit the petitioners to file a detailed representation against the impugned notice dated 30.08.2025 before the respondent no.2-Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Varanasi within a period of one month from today. On filing the said representation, the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same after hearing all the necessary parties strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter. 9. It is needless to say that respondent no.2 before passing any order on the WRIC No. 32764 of 2025 2 representation of the petitioners, shall give due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and shall also supply all the materials which is to be relied upon by the respondent no.2 against the petitioners. 10. Till the disposal of the representation of the petitioners, the petitioners shall not be evicted from the shop in question. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off subject to the observations made above. September 18, 2025 NS WRIC No. 32764 of 2025 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad