ORDER
Arun Mishra, J.
1.The petitioner seeks quashment of the order of suspension of licence for a period of two months as per order dated 30-7-2001 (Annexure P-5) and order (Annexure P-8) dated 12-10-2001 passed by the Appellate Authority-respondent No. 1.
2. The petitioner challenges the impugned order of suspension of licence on the solitary and singular ground that provision of Sub-section (4) of Section 33 of Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 requires issuance of show-cause notice prior to the suspension order/cancelling licence; no such notice of intention to suspend licence was issued in the case. This fact is not in dispute. It appears on perusal of documents filed with petition that the petitioner was issued notice only with respect to evading market fee. The petitioner was never informed of the proposal to suspend the licence. It appears that pursuant to the said notice issued on 14-6-2001 for depositing of the market fee, another notice dated 18th July, 2001 was issued to the petitioner for making best judgment assessment of fee. The petitioner admitted the guilt and was prepared to deposit requisite fine, evasion as per petitioner took place owing to the mistake of their employee. This admission is contained in the document dated 23-7-2001 (Annexure P-4). It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner expressed willingness to pay the market fee. Thereafter, without issuance of show-cause notice, an order suspending licence for a period of two months was issued on 30-7-2001 which was assailed in the appeal before the Additional Director, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipadan Board, Bhopal. The appeal was dismissed on 12-10-2001 as per order (Annexure P-8).
3. Shri Alok Aradhe, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that provision of Sub-section (4) of Section 33 was not resorted to before passing the order of suspension of licence for a period of two months; the order of suspension was not by way of interim arrangement but a final order for which the petitioner ought to have been issued show-cause notice as per proviso of Sub-section (4) of Section 33 of the Adhiniyam which is quoted below :–
“No licence shall be suspended or cancelled under this section without giving an opportunity to show cause against such suspension or cancellation.”
A bare reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that no order as per Sub-section (4) of Section 33 suspending a licence could be passed without issuance of show-cause notice stating as to why the licence be not suspended. Admittedly, no such notice was issued to him. Order dated 30-7-2001 (Annexure P-5) and Appellate Order dated 12-10-2001 (Annexure P-8) are liable to be quashed.
4. The writ petition is allowed. Order dated 30-7-2001 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 12-10-2001 (Annexure P-8) are quashed.
5. Cost on parties.