IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified the jurisdiction of the Secretary, delegation of revisional powers to the Director, and the authority of the Secretary to issue licenses under the Act, 1964.

JUDGMENT :

1. Short counter affidavit filed today in the Court is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Mandi Parishad at length.

3. Under challenge in the present petition are the orders dated 22.7.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2, Director, State Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P. Kishan "Mandi Bhawan" Bibhuti Khand, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow, passed in revision No.10 of 2022 (Kripa Shankar Pandey Vs. Secretary, Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Prayagraj), and the order dated 21.3.2023 passed by the respondent No. 2 on a recall application filed by the petitioner for recalling the aforesaid order dated 22.7.2022.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a partner of a firm by the name of M/s Vikas Trading Company, with the other partner being the respondent No. 4, Kripa Shankar Pandey. It is stated that license for running the business was granted by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Mundera, Prayagraj in 1991 in the name of the firm and since then business of the firm was being carried out in the allotted shop, the license being renewed from time to time. It is stated that in the year 2019, the respondent No. 4 illegally applied for renewal of the license in the name of the firm but projected himself as the proprietor of the firm without knowledge of the petitioner. It is stated that in view of the dispute so occasioned, the matter came to be considered by the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Mundera, Prayagraj, respondent No. 3, who, by an order dated 15.6.2022, held that the firm M/s Vikas Trading Company is a partnership firm in which the petitioner and respondent No. 4 are partners and the respondent No. 4 would permit the petitioner to sit in the shop and carry on his commercial activities from there. It is stated that thereafter, the respondent No. 3 issued a license only in the name of the petitioner with effect from 1.7.2019 to 30.6.2024.

5. The respondent No. 4 then filed the aforesaid revision without making the petitioner a party. By the impugned order dated 22.7.2022, an illegal and ex parte order was passed by the respondent No. 2 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Learned counsel has emphasized that denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by the revisional authority has caused prejudice to the petitioner and as such the order is wholly illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is stated that even otherwise, against the order of the Secretary, an appeal would lie under Section 25 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Act, 1964,[Act, 1964] and the revision itself was not maintainable.

6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the provisions of the Act, 1964, the revisional authority is the Board constituted under Section 26-A of the Act, 1964. No delegation of the revisional powers of the Board has been made and, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No. 2 is without jurisdiction. It is further stated that the Secretary is Chief Executive Officer, who is competent to issue a license as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, 1964 and, accordingly, the order dated 15.6.2022 issued by the respondent No. 3 is a valid order and the revisional authority ought not to have interfered in the order.

7. A short counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 3 has been filed by the learned counsel appearing for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. In the short counter-affidavit, an order of the Board bearing No. 1/252/84-6830 dated 21.3.1974 has been enclosed. It appears therefrom that the revisional powers of the Board have been delegated to the Director in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Act, 1964. With regard to the authority of the Secretary alone to pass the order dated 15.6.2022, in paragraph No. 4 of the short counter affidavit it has been submitted that that order was passed by the Secretary without any power being delegated to him.

8.