Allowed

Mohd Sami v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2020WRIC/14336/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order cancelling the petitioner's wholesale trading license. The sale had been done by the Chairman exercising powers under Section 33C and 33D applicable to private market yards, but the petitioners held a license for non-private yards which fell under Section 17. Thus, the Chairman lacked jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 12.05.2020 cancelling the license is quashed.

Mohd Sami Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14336 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd Sami Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archit Mandhyan

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Heard counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 and Sri Archit Mandhyan for respondents no. 2 and 3.

¶6

The petitioner was granted license for whole sale trading and commission joint of fruits and vegetables by the 2nd respondent in the year 2009-10, which had been renewed from time to time.

¶7

By the impugned order dated 12.05.2020 the Chairman of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Banda exercising his power allegedly under Section 33C and 33D of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (for short Adhiniyam, 1964) has cancelled the license of the petitioner.

¶8

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order by claiming that the power under Section 33C and 33D of the Adhiniyam, 1964 is available only in respect of a private market yard. It has been submitted that the license of the petitioner was not in respect of private market yard and therefore the license of the petitioner could have been cancelled/suspended by the Committee only, as per the provisions of Section 17(ii) of the Adhiniyam, 1964.

¶9

On 28.09.2020, after noticing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the court required Sri Archit Mandhyan to seek instructions whether the order passed by the Chairman could be treated within his jurisdiction..

¶10

Sri Archit Mandhyan, on instructions, submits that the license of the petitioner was not in a private market yard, therefore the same could have been cancelled/suspended as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Adhiniyam, 1964.

¶11

As Section 17 of the Adhiniyam, 1964 confers power on the Committee to suspend or cancel licenses, the order impugned passed by the Chairman, without reference to the Committee,

¶12

by exercising his power allegedly under Section 33C and 33D, which relates to private market yard, is without jurisdiction and is, accordingly, quashed. The petition stands allowed .

¶13

Needless to observe that this shall be without prejudice to the right of the Committee to proceed in accordance with law as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Adhiniyma, 1964.

¶14

Order Date :- 1.10.2020 Krishna*

Mohd Sami v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Sami v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Kumar Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramesh Kumar Maheshwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Veerendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aditi Construction through Its Proprietor Rajendra Nath Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Poonam Giri and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dilbahar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others