ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. ISSUE a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the order dated 26.2.2021 in Appeal No.Kru.Ma.E/Ni.Ya.Vi/Appeal/04/2020-21 passed by the Director of Agricultural Marketing & Appellate Authority, the second respondent a copy of which is produced at Annexure-G.

b. ISSUE, a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.07.2021 a copy of which is produced at Annexure-F and restore trade of the petitioner at Sub-Market, Dasanapura, Bengaluru in the ends of justice.

c. ISSUE any other writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

d. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the order No.KruUMaSa/Ben/Malige/438/2020-21 dated 14.05.2020 issued by the Respondent No.3, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-E, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner is a commission agent in the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Yard (APMC), Dasanapura operating in the name of style of M/s. Kenchamba Traders, claiming to have a valid license upto 31.03.2021 in respect of shop-cum-godown No.191 of Dasanapura Sub-Market, claiming that there was no trading happening at the said shop on account of COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner did not make payment of license fees and had sought for reduction in the license fees.

3. Despite the said request being made, the license of the petitioner was cancelled by respondent No.3 vide its resolution dated 14.05.2020 canceling the allotment, possession letter and forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.3 on 30.07.2021 requesting to renew the license. The said request was rejected, in pursuance thereto, an appeal came to be filed by the petitioner, which also came to be dismissed by respondent No.2/Director vide order dated

26.02.2021. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The submission of Smt. Shilpa Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that during the COVID period there was not enough business, and as such, the petitioner was unable to make payment of the license fee within time. Similar was the situation of various other shop owners or shop-cum-godown licensees, who had also requested for reduction in the license fees who are awaiting the reduction of the license fees due to which the petitioner did not make payment of their due license fees. She submits that the delay in payment of the license fees is required to be condoned since, subsequently, the license fees have been paid.

5. Insofar as, the allegations which have been made against the petitioner relating to non-payment of the dues to the farmers from whom the petitioner had purchased the agricultural produces to sell in the sub-market. There was a delay in payment of the said amounts on account of financial stringencies on part of the petitioner, but the said amounts have been subsequently paid and in this regard, she submits that letters have been received from the farmers, which have been collectively produced at Annexure-C to the petition which disclose that each of the farmers had acknowledged the receipt of the amounts.

6. Though there is a delay in payment of the amounts being paid there is no default as such, which is in existence by the petitioner as on the date which is required to be considered by this Court and a direction be issued to the respondents to renew the license.

7. She lastly submits that respondent No.3 has also indulged in discriminatory acts inasmuch as one other commission agent, namely i.e., M/s. Suresh Traders, who had also defaulted in making payments of license fees and payments to the farmers, had been treated favourably and his license renewed. The same ought to have been extended to the petitioner also.

8. Dr. Nanda Kishore, learned counsel app