JUDGMENT By the impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 13.4.98, the petitioner's licence as a whole-sale trader in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Balaghat has been cancelled on the alleged ground of breach of licencing conditions. The impugned order passed is appealable under section 34 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that earlier against the impugned action of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Balaghat, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Director which was allowed on 30.9.93 (Annexure P-6). Aggrieved thereby, the Mandi Samiti preferred an appeal to the State Government and by Order dated 15.12.97 (Annexure P-8), the State Government remanded the matter to the Mandi Samiti for taking necessary action, if at all justified, against the petitioner by giving him a proper opportunity to show-cause as required by sub-section (4) of section 33 of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the Mandi Samiti has pointed out that after the remand of the case by the State Government, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 18.3.98 (Annexure P-9) which was replied by the petitioner by (Annexure P-10) dated 23.3.98. The petitioner denied to have made any illegal purchases in violation of the licencing condition on 23.11.1998 which was holiday. After submission of the reply by the petitioner, the Mandi Samiti made the impugned order refusing to renew his licence for the year 1998-99 on the alleged ground of violation of the licencing conditions in the past. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the principles of natural justice have been violated as he did not get effective opportunity to show-cause against the allegations made against him for having indulged in illegal trade in the market of the Mandi Samiti. The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order refusing to renew his licence as a wholesale trader. 5. On behalf of the Mandi Samiti, learned counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the impugned order is appealable and as the appellate authority by communication dated 30.4.98 (Annexure P-1) has wrongly refused to entertain the appeal, this Court should send the matter to the appellate authority for decision on merits. 5. On behalf of the Mandi Samiti, learned counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the impugned order is appealable and as the appellate authority by communication dated 30.4.98 (Annexure P-1) has wrongly refused to entertain the appeal, this Court should send the matter to the appellate authority for decision on merits. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate at this stage to relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy of appeal as is pointed out by the petitioner, the remedy of appeal was availed by him but was not proved efficacious. The petitioner's operation as trader in the market has been stopped and he is unable to earn his livelihood. The counsel for the parties were, therefore, heard on the merits of the case. In the instant case, the petitioner's licence in the current year has not been renewed on the ground of; he having indulged in illegal trade in the market area. The allegations made against him in the show-cause notice was denied by him. The authority acting in the matter of cancelling, suspending or refusing to renew a licence under the Act, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and it is expected of it to pass a reasoned order. It is more so as the order of the licencing authority or the Marketing Committee is subject to correction or confirmation in appeal under section 34 of the Act. A bare perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 13.4.98 would show that the competent authority has neither referred to the evidence or material on the basis of which the petitioner was found to have been indulged in illegal trade. It has not considered the written reply of the petitioner to the show-cause notice. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of refusal to renew the licence deserves to be quashed on the short ground that it contains no reasons. Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.4.98 (Annexure P-I) passed by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Balaghat is quashed with directions to the Samiti to consider the petitioner's application for grant of renewal of his licence and decide the same within a reasonable period of a month. There shall be no orders as to costs.