K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has challenged the notice No. APMCB 8096/80-81 dated 15/16-6-81 issued by the Secretary, agricultural Produce Market Committee, bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the apmc) (Annexure-L ). ( 2 ) AMONG others, the petitioner is a wholesale trader in coconut, and is carrying on his business in coconut at the market yard of the APMC in terms of licences issued to him under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce marketing (Regulation) Act of 1966 (Karnataka Act No. 27 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the said licences renewed from time to time were due to expire on 30 6-1981. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, the petitioner made applications for renewal of his licences for the succeeding year from 1-7-1981 to 30-6-1982. On 15/16-6-1981 the APMC has notified the petitioner that the applications made by him will not be considered and disposed of till a criminal prosecution alleged to have been launched against him in a criminal court for the alleged violation of S 8 of the Act is concluded. ( 3 ) SRI A. B. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the consideration of applications for renewal cannot be withheld pending determination of a criminil prosecution launched by the APMC in a criminal Court. In support of this contention Sri Patil strongly relies on a recent decision rendered by this Court in P. D. Mistry v. State of Karnataka (1 ). ( 4 ) SRI B. G. Sridharan, learned counsel for respondent No 1 sought to justify the action of the APMC. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he has not received any summons in any case filed by the APMC before any criminal Court, and therefore, he asserts that no criminal case is pending against him. But, for the purpose of this case, I will assume that the statement made by the apmc in the impugned notice is factually correct and examine the validity of its action ( 6 ) SRI Sridharan has not been able to point out any provision which authorises the APMC to withhold the consideration and disposal of an application immediately a prosecution is launched by it before a criminal Court. On the other hand, S 73 of the Act and Rule 77 of the rules framed under the Act, provide that a licence can be suspended or cancelled only when there is a conviction by a criminal Court and not otherwise. On the language of S. 73 and Rule 77, the apmc cannot withhold the consideration and disposal of an application for renewal till the matter is concluded by the criminal Court. ( 7 ) IN examining somewhat a similar situation, though arising under the provisions of the Licensing and Controlling of Public Amusements and Places of Public Amusements Order, 1970, this Court in Mistry's case (1) expressed thus : "an application for grant of licence made by the petitioner as early as on 12-2-1981 has not been considered and disposed of by the dcp solely on the ground that a criminal case against him registered in the Cubbon Park Police Station, is pending. When that case would reach its finality and with what result either before the Police or thereafter before the appropriate criminal court and superior Courts that have to deal with the matter, cannot be predicated with any certainty. The Police Act and the Order do not provide that an application for a licence can be kept pending till the disposal of a criminal case by the Police and the criminal Courts. An application for a licence is required to be dealt with and decided by the authority with all such expedition as is possible in the circumstances of the case In my view the withholding of the consideration of the application made by the petitioner is totally irrelevant to the Act and the Order and is not permissible legal ground and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. " on the language of the provisions of the act as also on the enunciation made in afistry's case, which is applicable to the question that arises for determination in this case also, it is clear that the action of the APMC in withholding the consideration and disposal of the applications made by the petitioner is manifestly illegal and the impugned order is, therefore, liable to be quashed ( 8 ) AS the APMC has not considered the applicdtions made by the petitioner on merits, it is necessary for this Court to direct it to forthwith consider and dispose of them without awaiting the decision of a criminal Court, if any filed by the APMC. ( 9 ) IN the light of my above discussion, I quash the notice No. APMCB 8096/80-81 dated 15/16th June, 1981 of the Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bangalore (Annexure-L) and direct the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bangalore to consider and dispose of the applications made by the petitioner for renewal of licences with all such expedition as is possible in the circumstances of the case and in any event within a period of five days from this day. ( 10 ) RULE issued is made absolute. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances of the case i direct the parties to bear their own costs. ( 12 ) LET a copy of this order be com municated to respondent No. 1 forthwith. Let another copy be furnished to Sri b. G. Sridharan, simultaneously. --- *** --- .