authority, cancelling the appellant’s seed licence was subjected to challenge. In the order, in W.A. No. 1739 of 2017 dated 20.11.2017, the Division bench had noted the submission urged on behalf of the appellant that the action of the original authority was contrary to the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture dated 8.8.2007 which classified the contraventions into two categories viz (i) rectifiable contraventions, (ii) non-rectifiable contraventions; and the petitioner’s contraventions, even if accepted, were rectifiable and not non-rectifiable. The Division Bench also noted the contention urged on behalf of the appellant that the mere possibility of the paddy, purchased by the appellantwrit petitioner, being used to extract seeds, and not to be converted into rice, would not justify the respondents taking action against the appellant; and preventive cancellation of the licence, for a possible future violation which may or may not happen, was wholly unjustified. On the sole ground that all these contentions could be urged in the appeal, the Division Bench directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal by a reasoned order.
