By the Court.—Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R. K. Pathak Advocate and Sri Bijendra Kumar Mishra Advocate and Ms. Archana Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5. Respondent No. 6 is not a necessary or proper party. This writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage without calling for counter affidavit.

2. Vide para 9 of the writ petition, it is claimed that the petitioner (Pankaj Tiwari) obtained licence under the Seeds Act, 1966 for running a processing plant. There is no dispute that the said licence was obtained as required under the Seeds (Control) Order,1983. It is also not disputed that the licence was obtained under Clause 3 of the said Order, 1983 which requires dealers to obtain licence. It is also not disputed that under the aforesaid Order the petitioner filed an application in the prescribed Form ‘A’. Under Clause 7 of the said Form A there is a Note which reads “Where the business of selling/exporting/importing seeds is intended to be carried on at more than one place, a separate licence should be obtained for each such place.” The petitioner has not filed even a copy of the said application and the licence No. 89/8819 dated 13.8.04. The photostat copies of the same have been placed by Ms. Archana Srivastava Advocate appearing for the contesting respondents. Correctness of these photostat copies has not been challenged and we have no reason to doubt the genuineness and authenticity of these documents. Photo copy of the application shows that one Ashok Tiwari son of Sri Kamlakar Tiwari had filed the application before the District Agriculture Officer, Varanasi for obtaining licence on 11.8.2004. It is also to be noted that in the application signed by Sri Ashok Tiwari on 11.8.2004 he has categorically mentioned that the applicant wants to purchase and sell (i.e. carry on business) of food grains, Dalhan, Tilhan, all vegetable seeds and fodder seeds within the District of Varanasi. The photo copy of Form A placed before us further shows that there is no mention of any other place for carrying on business below the Note mentioned under Clause 7. Photo copy of the licence No. 89/8819 placed before us clearly indicates that the licence was granted to sell seeds within the District of Varanasi. The licensing authority, as per the aforesaid photostat copy, is the District Agriculture Officer, Varanasi.

3. Ms. Archana Srivastava Advocate also pointed out that this writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of Pankaj Tiwari son of Sri K.K. Tiwari inasmuch as the licence was obtained by Sri Ashok Tiwari. Apart from it the learned counsel for the contesting respondents also raised preliminary objection on the ground of equally efficacious alternative remedy by way of filing appeal under Clause 16 (b) of the Order, 1983 which provides that any person aggrieved by an order suspending or cancelling any licence may within sixty days from the date of the order, file appeal to such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf accompanied by fee of Rs. 50/-. We are informed that in the instant case, as per the notification dated July 4, 1985, the Director Agriculture U.P. is the appellate authority.

4. On behalf of the petitioner it is argued that the impugned order dated 5.11.2006 cancelling the licence (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) passed by the District Agriculture Officer, Varanasi is nullity inasmuch as the District Agriculture Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to cancel the licence as the authority conferred by means of the Government notification dated 4.7.1985 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) has been revoked and superseded by means of notification dated 7.12.1995 issued by the Government (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). The contention is that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and the writ petition should not be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

5. We have carefully considere