JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard finally.

2. These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assail the legality, propriety and correctness of a common order dated 14th January, 2022 passed by the Joint Director (Marketing) Maharashtra State, Pune, purportedly under Section 52B of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (“the Act, 1963”), whereby and whereunder the appeals preferred by the petitioner challenging the cancellation of the licence granted to the petitioner in respect of a Stall bearing No.124 situated at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Market Yard, Gultekdi, Pune and the issue of the licence to respondent Nos.1 and 2, in respect of the very same Stall by the Market Committee, came to be dismissed.

3. Background facts necessary for determination of these petitions can be stated in brief as under:

(a) The petitioner claimed that late Manohar Bande, the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2, was the petitioner’s uncle. The petitioner and Manohar Bande were jointly running a business under the name and style of M/s. Shriram Traders at Stall No.124, Market Yard, Pune, which was given on lease by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Pune (“the Market Committee”), to respondent No.4, for a period of 99 years, to Manohar Bande. The petitioner asserts petitioner was looking after the entire business of M/s. Shriram Traders exclusively as Manohar had been unwell for a long period before he passed away on 29th December, 2017.

(b) The petitioner asserts that Manohar Bande had executed a Will on 6th November, 2015 and bequeathed all of his properties, including Stall No.124, to the petitioner. During the lifetime of Manohar, in the year 2009, respondent No.2 the daughter of Manohar, had executed a registered Release Deed relinquishing her rights and interest in the property of Manohar, which eventually came to be bequeathed to the petitioner.

(c) In the year 2019, respondent Nos.1 and 2 instituted a suit being RCS No.1915 of 2019 falsely alleging that the registered Release Deed and Will were fraudulently obtained and did not bind the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

(d) In the meanwhile, the Market Committee issued the licence on 27th September, 2018 to carry on the trade from the Stall No.124 to the petitioner. The licence came to be renewed till the year 2023.

(e) On 10th August, 2019, an application was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Market Committee seeking transfer of Stall No.124 in their name alleging fraud on the part of the petitioner. On 6th February, 2021, the Market Committee resolved to revoke the licence granted in favour of the petitioner and by a subsequent order dated 23rd April, 2021, the licence came to be granted in the name of respondent Nos.1 and 2, without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeals being Appeal No.30 of 2021 and Appeal No.46 of 2021 before the Director (Marketing).

5. Initially, by an order dated 22nd April, 2021, the Director (Marketing) granted stay to the execution and operation of the letter dated 9th April, 2021 conveying the decision of the Market Committee dated 6th February, 2021. By a further order dated 27th May, 2021, interim order was confirmed and continued till the hearing of the appeal. However, on 28th October, 2021, the Director (Marketing) vacated the interim order without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was thus constrained to approach this Court in Writ Petition No.8270 of 2021 and Writ Petition No.8268 of 2021.

6. By an order dated 17th December, 2021 the writ petitions were disposed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 28th October, 2021 and directing that the interim order dated 22nd April, 2021, as confirmed by order dated 27th May, 2021, shall operate till the final disposal of the app