By the Court.—Heard Sri Salil Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Gaur, learned advocate, appearing for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti.

The challenge raised is to the impugned order dated 18.7.2013, whereby the respondent has proceeded to cancel the licence of the petitioners in exercise of powers under Section 17 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Niyamali 1964 read with Rule 71 and 72 of the 1965 Rules framed thereunder.

2. Substantially four grounds of challenge have been raised.

The first is that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as 15 days notice has not been given to the petitioners in terms of Rule 72.

The second ground is that the same Rule also provides for giving of a personal hearing and the licensee has to be heard in person before the order is passed which was also not observed.

The third is that none of the ingredients of Rule 71 have been shown to be available for the purpose of cancellation of the licence.

Fourthly, that the show-cause notice refers to different charges and in spite of the reply having been given by the petitioners, the impugned order proceeds on different facts altogether. Thus, the reasons given are absolutely foreign to the charges levelled against the petitioners.

The fifth argument advance is that one of the grounds for cancelling the licence is unacceptable namely the Future Potential Return in the event of the canteen being re-auctioned, which has been made a ground for cancellation. Sri Rai submits that even this ground is not available inasmuch as such a future return being expected by the Mandi Samiti, cannot be a ground of cancelling the same as it does not violate any terms of licence.

3. Sri Gaur, learned counsel for the Mandi Samiti, contends that the mandate of Rule 72, as urged by the petitioners, has not to be read strictly and the show-cause was given to the petitioners whereafter the order has been passed and therefore no prejudice is caused. Even otherwise this part of the Rule that 15 days notice should be given, is not mandatory. He further submits that the right of personal hearing is not a right vested in a licensee who is alleged to have violated the terms and conditions of licence.

Sri Gaur then submits that the background in which the licence was sought to be cancelled has been narrated in the show-cause and in the counter-affidavit and in such circumstances, the order passed by the respondents, does not require any interference.

4. Having given our consideration to the arguments raised, we find that wherever a procedure for compliance of principles of natural justice is statutorily engrained, then in that event the compliance has to be in the manner as provided under the Statute and not on mere general principles. In the instant case, admittedly, the notice was given indicating 7 days for reply and not 15 days as permitted, and no personal hearing was afforded or any notice to that effect given to the petitioners.

5. Surprisingly, what we find from the order dated 18.7.2013 is that there is neither any mention of the show-cause nor is there any mention of the reply given by the petitioners. The order proceeds as if the petitioners had been given the canteen for a mere short time and its continuance was causing in convenience to the running of the canteen. Further Damp No. 4 that was rented out to the petitioners also was taken into consideration only for the purpose of realisation of the balance of rent. In the circumstances, the order does not appear to be clearly an order of cancellation of licence but a direction to hand over possession of the premises for the reasons stated therein even though the show-cause notice alleges violation of the terms of licence.

6. The argument advanced by Sri Gaur, therefore, appears to be a supplement sought to be introduced to the impugned order, which cannot be done either through a counter-affidavit or by oral arguments. The show-cause notice has to be deal