Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27617 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Dinesh Trading Company Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mayank Kumar Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archit Mandhyan
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
We have heard Sri Mayank Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nipendra Mishra, learned Advocate appearing for respondents no. 2 and 3 and have perused the record.
By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.07.2019 whereby the license to run business under Mandi Samiti has come to be cancelled.
The ground for assailing the order is that the order has been passed in arbitrary exercise of power, inasmuch as the notice, according to the petitioner, was duly replied to but the reply has not been considered in the correct perspective.
Per contra the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 Sri Nipendra Mishra is that there is a statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under Section 25 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and the petitioner can avail such remedy.
Having heard learned counsels for the parties and their arguments across the bar and having perused the records, we are of the opinion that once there is statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Act, one should always, in the first instance, avail the same unless the order is said to have been passed without jurisdiction or in case there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice.
Having gone through the order impugned dated 17.07.2019 we are of the clear opinion that there was a notice given prior to passing of the order and the petitioner fully availed the opportunity by submitting the reply but the authority cancelling the license did not act apporpriately while rejecting the reply. However the authority that passed the order had the sanction of law and this much is not disputed.
The question whether the exercise of power is aribtrary or whether the reply of the petitioner has not been considered in correct perspective are the questions that can always be gone into in the appeal if grounds to the said effect are raised.
In view of the above the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative efficacious remedy.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Nadeem Ahmad (Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)