( 1 ) RULE. Service of rule is waived by Mr. Tushar Mehta for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. P. R. Abichandani, Ld. AGP for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

( 2 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who was earlier granted a licence for carrying on business as a general commission agent and as a trader in Stall No. 11-A the Sardar Patel Market Yard under the Agricultural Produce Market Committee ( hereinafter referred to as the "apmc") w. e. f. 17. 8. 96 on annual basis has challenged the non-renewal of the licence by the impugned resolution dated 29. 4. 2000 (Annexure H) passed by the APMC which was thereafter confirmed by the Director of Agricultural Market and Rural Finance on 23. 6. 2000 (Annexure I ).

( 3 ) AFTER the licence was given to the petitioner on 17. 8. 96 as per Annexure A, the licence was renewed every year w. e. f. 1st October of the subsequent years. However, when the petitioner submitted his application for renewal for the year 1999-2000 commencing from 1st October, 1999, the APMC issued a show cause notice dated 13. 3. 2000 (Annexure B) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioners application for renewal of the licence should not be rejected and why the petitioner should not be required to hand over possession of stall No. 11-A. The show cause notice was issued on the ground that the petitioner had transferred the stall to another party and the petitioner was employed with Ismailbhai having another stall in the same market yard, and, therefore, the licence was not required to be renewed in favour of the petitioner. The show cause notice was replied by the petitioner on 18. 3. 2000 as per the reply at Annexure D. A Sub-Committee of the APMC submitted a report against the petitioner. The Market Committee at its meeting held on 29. 6. 2000 passed Resolution No. 6 accepting the report and resolving that the licence in favour of the petitioner may not be renewed and the petitioner be required to hand over vacant possession of the stall to the Secretary of the Committee. Aggrieved by the said resolution, the petitioner went in appeal which came to be dismissed by the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance vide order dated 23. 6. 2000 (Annexure I ). Hence the petitioner has challenged the said orders before this Court.

( 4 ) AT the hearing of the petition, Mr. B. G. Jani, Ld. Advocate for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:-I. The impugned action of the Respondent Committee was in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing and producing the evidence in support of his case. II. The impugned action was arbitrary as the petitioner and the petitioners father were carrying on the business in the stall in question with the help of the employees and the petitioner had not transferred the stall to any other person. The material on record was such that no reasonable person would arrive at the conclusion which has been arrived at by the Committee and therefore, the findings given by the Committee are perverse. The grounds on the basis of which the Committee has passed the impugned resolution are not sufficent and there is no warrant in law for coming to the conclusion that the licence was not required to be renewed. III. The impugned decision was otherwise also vitiated by malafides, as in the past, the petitioners father had made a complaint against the management of the APMC about the manner of allotting licences which allegations were found by the Registrar and the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance to be true and, therefore, although on that occasion the Committee members agreed to allot a stall to the petitioner, subsequently, they settled the score with the petitioners father by taking the impugned decision.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, Mr. K. G. Vakharia, Learned Sr. Counsel with Mr. Tushar Mehta, for the respondents and Mr. P. R. Abichandan