A.R. Navkar, J.

This is a petition under Article 226/227 of the. Conslitu-of India for issuance of the writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order which may be suitable in the circumstances of the case for quashing the order passed against the petitioner by Director, Mandi, Madhya Pradesh, on 13-10-1981 (Annexure-III).

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was duly elected as a Member of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Joura, District Morena (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) and he was also elected as President of the Samiti as per provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam). The petitioner took over the charge of the post in September 1979. While he was working so, he was given a show-cause notice on 18-9-1981 under section 55(1) of the Adhiniyam and certain charges were levelled against him. The petitioner has alleged that charges framed against him were baseless, but he filed a detailed parawise reply to the same. The non-petitioner without giving the opportunity of hearing dismissed the petitioner from the post of Chairman and also from the membership of the Samiti and asked him to hand over the charge. Further, the order which is Annexure III proposes a penalty of debarring him for six years from the. date of the order from getting re-elected or renominated as a member of the market Committee. The Annexure III mentions that action is taken under section 55(1) of the Adhiniyam, but in fact, it is taken under section 55(2). Much was made of the wrong mention of the section by Shri S. K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, but, we are -of the opinion that mere wrong mention of the section will not vitiate the inquiry.

Other point submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that no inquiry was made and no opportunity to cross-examine was given and no opportunity to lead evidence in defence was given so also no personal hearing was given, but in our opinion, these submissions have no force and they arc to be rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred us to the following rulings in support of his submission. H-e referred to Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851 and relied on the following passage.

When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. AIR 1952 SC 16, Rel. on." The above passage has no application to the present case at all. The order under challenge is based on grounds and it mentions what facts are considered before passing the .order and in deciding the matter, we are not taking into consideration any fresh reasons or grounds in the shape of affidavit or otherwise to support the order. We are considering the validity of the order on its merits. Then, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to us to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 and submitted that in the case of the petitioner, principles of natural justice and procedure established by law is not followed. He relied on the following passage in support of his submission:

Per Bhagwati J. (jointly with Untwalia and Murtaza Fazal Ali JJ.); rest of the Judges concurring;

There are certain well recognised exceptions to the audi alteram partem rule established by judicial decisions and they are summarised by S. A. de Smith in Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 2nd Edn. at pages 168 to 179. If we analyse these exceptions a little closely, it will be apparent that they do not in any way militate against the principle which requires fair play in administrative action. The word 'exception' is really a misnomer because in these exclusionary cases, the audi alteram partem rule is held inapplicab