( 1 ) THE petitioners have come up with prayers to quash the Order dated 9-8-1989 and 30/08/1994 as contained in Annexures 3 and 4 passed by the Licensing Officer, Regulation of Cold Storages Act/sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Farrukhabad, in Claim Case No. 40 filed by Respondent No. 3, herein, by grant of a writ of certiorari. ( 2 ) IT appears that for setting aside the order dated 9-8-1989, the Petitioners had moved Respondent No. 1, but their prayer was rejected vide order dated 30/08/1994. ( 3 ) THE Petitioner assert inter alia that they also filed an appeal along with stay application under Section 36 of the U. P. Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before Respondent No. 2 U. P. Cold Storage Tribunal, but since the Tribunal is not sitting for the last six months and as such there is no alternative efficacious remedy available to them; that in the year 1985 an application was filed by Respondent No. 3 before Respondent No. 1 for awarding compensation from Messrs Avtar Cold Storage, Yaqootganj, Farrukhabad in regard to potatoes stored by him, which were damaged stating that the name of Messrs. Avtar Cold Storage has been presently changed as Kundan Cold Storage in regard to which issue No. 3 was framed; that the partners of Messrs Avtar Cold Storage had sold it out, vide registered sale deed dated 13-4-1988 (as contained in Annexure-1) to Petitioner No. 2, who since then has been running the Cold Storage in the name and style of Messrs Kundan Cold Storage; which is a registered partnership firm has four partners the Petitioner No. 2 Smt. Shanti Devi, Surendra Pal Chhabra and Jitendra Pal Chhabra who are in no way connected with the partners of Messrs Avtar Cold Storage, the petitioners had no knowledge about the Claim Petition filed by Respondent No. 3 against Messrs. Avtar Cold Storage; service on them was manipulated by Respondent No. 3 which showed that the summons have been served on the Manager of the Petitioner No. 1 without having even his signature and thus ex facie incorrect, yet their prayer to set aside the aforementioned order dated 9-8-1989 was wrongly rejected by the impugned order dated 30/08/1994; Petitioner No. 1 not having born in the year 1985, the responsibility to pay compensation was on Messrs Avtar Cold Storage, which has been wrongly fixed on Petitioner No. 1 and its partners; Messrs Avtar Cold Storage and Messrs. Kundan Cold Storage are entirely different registered partnership firms having different identity and partners and thus, the Petitioner No. 1 has been wrongly fasten with the liability. ( 4 ) MR. Pankaj Bhatia, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends as follows:-no counter-affidavit having been filed by the Respondents, the facts stated in the writ petition be accepted as true invoking the doctrine of non traverse. The Respondents have not brought on the record the summons or the alleged service report to show that the summons sent to the Petitioners was received by their Manager. For these apparent reasons, the prayers made by the petitioners be allowed. ( 5 ) SRI N. K. Sharma, who has entered appearance on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 (the claimant) takes up a stand that in the interest of justice the impugned order be quashed and the claim petition filed by Respondent No. 3 be directed to be disposed of afresh on merit. ( 6 ) SMT. Sarita Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is not at all in a position to give any answer to the submissions made by Sri Bhatia. ( 7 ) SECTION 25 of the Act reads as follows:-"dispute regarding compensation to be referred to the Licensing Officer.- (1) Every dispute regarding compensation payable by the licensee under Section 24 shall be referred to the Licensing Officer, and subject to the result of appeal, if any, under Section 36, the order of the Licensing Officer shall be final. ( 7 ) SECTION 25 of the Act reads as follows:-"dispute regarding compensation to be referred to the Licensing Officer.- (1) Every dispute regarding compensation payable by the licensee under Section 24 shall be referred to the Licensing Officer, and subject to the result of appeal, if any, under Section 36, the order of the Licensing Officer shall be final. (2) When the Licensing Officer is satisfied that any compensation payable by a licensee under sub-section (1) has not been paid within thirty days from the date of the order under sub-section (12) or, as the case may be, from the date of the decision of the Tribunal under Section 36, he shall issue a certificate of recovery to the Collector, and the Collector shall recover the amount of such compensation together with costs of recovery as arrears of land revenue and pay the amount realised, after deduction of costs, to the hirer. " ( 8 ) THE word "licensee" stands defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act, which reads as follows :-"licensee" means any person to whom a licence is granted under this Act. ( 9 ) APPARENTLY, the petitioner was not a licensee in the year 1985, when the claim petition was filed by Respondent No. 3. 9. 1. We do not find from the record as to how the petitioner was treated to be a licensee of the claimant within the meaning of the Act with effect from 1985. 9. 2. THE observations made in the order dated 9-8-1989 that summons were served on the Manager of the Petitioners in view of the unrebutted stands made by the Petitioners that the summons do not bear the signatures of the Manager on behalf Messrs. Avtar Cold Storage and that service was manipulated by Respondent No. 3 by filing any counter-affidavit or even by production of record before us. We have no option but to hold that the proceedings were conducted by Respondent No. 1 violating the principles of natural justice. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, we quash the impugned orders and remit back Claim Case No. 40 of 1985 filed by Respondent No. 3 before Respondent No. 1 for a fresh decision in accordance with law after giving notices to all other parties. ( 11 ) IN the peculiar facts and circumstances, we make no order as to cost. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, we quash the impugned orders and remit back Claim Case No. 40 of 1985 filed by Respondent No. 3 before Respondent No. 1 for a fresh decision in accordance with law after giving notices to all other parties. ( 11 ) IN the peculiar facts and circumstances, we make no order as to cost. ( 12 ) THIS writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated as above. ( 13 ) LET a copy of this order be handed over to Smt. Sarita Singh, learned Standing Counsel within two weeks for its entire following up action. Petition allowed. .