Allahabad High Court
M/S VINOD KUMAR AND BROTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court permitted the withdrawal of both writ petitions, noting that the petitioners may still pursue renewal of the license under Rule 67 if they satisfy its provisions.
Summary
The petitioners, M/s Vinod Kumar and Brothers, filed two writ petitions challenging orders passed in appeal and revision against a notice issued by the Mandi Samiti under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Niyamawali, 1965. They sought permission to withdraw the petitions, contending that they had already been granted liberty to participate in the proceedings and could avail themselves of Rule 67 for license renewal. The respondents argued that the petitioners had admitted there was no ground for renewal of the license. The Court examined whether any legal impediment existed to the withdrawal and to invoking Rule 67. It granted permission to withdraw both writ petitions, observing that all legal avenues, including renewal under Rule 67, remain open if the petitioners qualify. Consequently, both writ petitions were disposed of with the noted observation.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners may withdraw the writ petitions after having been granted liberty to participate in the proceedings.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to invoke Rule 67 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Niyamawali for renewal of their license.
- Whether any legal impediment exists to the renewal of the license under the said rule.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Niyamawali, 1965
Subjects
- writ petition
- withdrawal
- Rule 67
- license renewal
- Mandi Samiti
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 34497 of 2026
M/S Vinod Kumar And Brothers
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Awadhesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Archit Mandhyan, C.S.C., Sudhanshu
Srivastava
Along with :
WRIT C No. 34996 of 2026
M/S Vinod Kumar And Brothers
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners in both writ
petitions, Sri Shyam Singh, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Sudhanshu
Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that since impugned orders
were passed in appeal and revision on a challenge to a notice issued by
respondent - Mandi Samiti in terms of provisions of U.P. Krishi Utpadan
Mandi Samiti Niyamawali, 1965 and a liberty has already been granted to
petitioners to participate in said proceedings, therefore, prays that both
writ petitions be permitted to be withdrawn.
3. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner may be granted a liberty
to take benefit of provisions of Rule 67 of said Rules, if there is no legal
impediment.
4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that there is admission on
behalf of petitioners in present proceedings as well as presently,
petitioners have no ground for renewal of license.
5. In aforesaid circumstances, since petitioners want to withdraw these
WRIC No. 34497 of 2026
2
writ petitions. Accordingly, a permission is granted with an observation
that all legal avenues are available including issue of renewal, if
petitioners fall within the provisions of Rule 67 of said Rules.
6. Both writ petitions are disposed of with above observations.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
September 8, 2026
N. Sinha
Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…