An APMC licence cannot be cancelled without a reasonable opportunity to show cause.

The petitioner, a grocery-trading proprietary concern holding an APMC licence, challenged the third respondent’s order dated 9 September 2026 cancelling its licence and sealing its premises.

The order alleged that the petitioner had employed a 16-year-old, contrary to the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and the licence conditions.

The petitioner maintained that the adolescent had only assisted with packing small quantities of groceries and argued that it had not been given an opportunity to show cause before cancellation.

It sought quashing of the order and the reopening of the premises.

The third respondent proposed that the impugned order be treated as a show-cause notice, allowing the petitioner to respond and the authority to decide the matter.

1. Whether the APMC Secretary could cancel the petitioner’s licence without first providing a reasonable opportunity to show cause under Section 73(4) of the APMC Act.

2. Whether the sealed premises should remain closed while the third respondent reconsidered the cancellation.

3. Whether the alleged employment of a 16-year-old in grocery packing violated the 1986 Act so as to justify cancellation of the licence.

Section 73(4) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 provides that a licence may not be suspended or cancelled unless its holder is given a reasonable opportunity to show cause.

Under Section 3A of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, the relevant prohibition concerns employing an adolescent in hazardous occupations or processes specified in the Act’s Schedule; whether the alleged work falls within that prohibition requires consideration of the statutory definition of “adolescent” and the scheduled activities and processes.

No precedent was relied upon.

The Court held that an alleged violation of the 1986 Act could provide a basis for cancellation, but the existence of a violation had to be examined after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to respond, as required by Section 73(4).

The Court did not determine whether packing groceries in small quantities fell within the statutory prohibition.

Instead, it required the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s response, the statutory definition of “adolescent,” the activities and processes in the Schedule, and the petitioner’s account of the work performed, and to give cogent reasons.

Given the proposed prompt reconsideration, the Court found no basis to keep the premises sealed pending that process.

The order dated 9 September 2026 was treated as a show-cause notice.

The petitioner was permitted to file a response with supporting documents within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, and the third respondent was directed to consider it in light of the Court’s observations.

The petitioner could present the certified copy and seek immediate reopening, and the third respondent was directed to ensure that the seal was broken forthwith.

The Court did not finally decide whether the alleged employment violated the 1986 Act.