Cancellation of license under Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam without prior notice violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a private limited company, challenged the orders dated 20.11.2013 and 06.01.2014 issued by Respondent No. 3

The latter order cancelled the petitioner’s license based on instructions from the Managing Director of the State Agricultural Marketing Board (the appellate authority) following allegations that market fee receipts produced by the petitioner were forged

The petitioner contended that the cancellation occurred without a show-cause notice and was issued at the "dictates" of the appellate authority, rendering any statutory appeal a futile exercise

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's license without a prior show-cause notice violated the statutory mandate of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972

2. Whether the court should adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding the forgery of receipts and liability for market fees under Article 226

Section 33(4) of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, which explicitly prohibits the suspension or cancellation of a license without providing the licensee an opportunity to show cause

Principle of Natural Justice, which requires a fair hearing before adverse administrative action

The jurisdictional principle that disputed questions of fact are generally not adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India

The court found that the order dated 06.01.2014 was passed in direct contravention of Section 33(4) of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, as no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner

Applying the law to the facts, the court determined the order was void for violating both statutory mandates and the principles of natural justice

Regarding the allegations of forged receipts and the petitioner’s liability to pay market fees, the court reasoned that these are "disputed questions of fact" that cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition; such matters must be determined by the competent appellate authority

Furthermore, to ensure a fair administrative process, the court recognized that since the original cancellation was influenced by the appellate authority's earlier correspondence, a direction was necessary to ensure the pending appeal is heard with an "unbiased mind"

The court granted liberty to the authorities to take fresh action following due process

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal (Annexure P/8) strictly on its merits and in consonance with law, without being influenced by its own earlier communications or the quashed cancellation order