Short Note : 1. By these petitions, the petitioners seek to assail the order of the Mandi Marketing Committee and the order of Director of Agriculture seeking to impose a condition that the dealers must give security in cash or furnish a Bank guarantee according to the capacity in order to maintain stability in the market as provided in section 17(2)(xi) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972. Miscellaneous Petition No. 38 of 1975 concerns with Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jora while in the other two petitions the Agriculture Produce Market Committee. Sabalgarh and Ambah are concerned. The petitioners in the three petition are all dealers who were granted respective licences in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Act of 1972 has been brought into force with effect from 1-6-1973. The Act is made to provided for better regulation of buying and selling of Agriculture produce and the establishment and proper administration of markets for Agriculture produce in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Held: The Act does not make any distinction between the renewal of a licence and the grant of a licence. The power to grant licences is provided in section 32. Sub section (3) of section 32 states that the market committee may grant or renew the licence and also, for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to grant or renew the licence. By sub-section (4) of the said section, all licences granted or renewed under this section shall be subject to the provision of the Act and the rules and by laws made thereunder. 2. The provision for cancellation of licences is to be found in section 33 of the Act. The Market Committee is authorised, for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel a licence. It is to be noted that the Act gives various situations under which the licences could be cancelled. It, however, does not provide that the licences could be cancelled for not furnishing security as provided under section 17 (2) (xi) (b) of the Act. It was earlier pointed out that the licences were to be subject to the provisions of the Act, rules and the bye-laws. It, however, does not provide that the licences could be cancelled for not furnishing security as provided under section 17 (2) (xi) (b) of the Act. It was earlier pointed out that the licences were to be subject to the provisions of the Act, rules and the bye-laws. If the licences were not consistent with the rules, such licences could obviously be cancelled even though no specific power in that regard was adumbrated in sub-section (1) of section 33. Sub-sections (2) and (3) deal with the powers of the Chairman and the Director of Agriculture to suspend or cancel the licences granted or renewed by the market committee. The cases of grant and renewal have been dealt with simultaneously. In our opinion, the provision for obtaining security provided under sub-section (b) of section 17 (2) (xi) could be applied at the time of initial grant as also at the time of renewal. While renewing a licence, the licence is granted for a year, and therefore, there is no substance in the contention that sub-section (2) can not be applied in case of renewals. 3. Since it was not specifically provided under section 33 that the licences could be cancelled for failing to furnish security under section 17 (2) (xi) (b) of the Act, it is stated that licences shall not be cancelled if the security is not furnished. Under the scheme, the market committee was given power not to grant the licence at all if the security was not furnished Since the licence was granted for a year the provision equally applies to the cases of renewals. We, therefore, see no substance in these petitions. Petitions dismissed.