JUDGMENT 1. 1. The grievance of the petitioners in this cluster of four writ petitions is analogous, therefore, I propose to decide all these four writ petitions by a common order. 2. In writ petition No.3446/2002, the Administrator, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Nawalgarh vide order dated January 15, 2002 suspended the licences of the petitioner firms, whereas in writ petitions No. 3431/2002, 3474/2002 and 3527/2002, licences of the petitioner firms were suspended by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jhunjhunu vide common order dated March 1, 2002. 3. After unsuccessful appeals, the petitioner-firms have now approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have pondered over rival submissions and scanned the record. 5. It will be appropriate at this juncture to consider sub-rule 5 of Rule 71 of Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963 (for short 1963 Rules'), which reads as under : "(5) The Market Committee shall take the decision regarding cancellation or suspension of a licence on the basis of Secretary's report the charge sheet and the explanation of the person who is alleged to have committed the offence and record the reasons of cancelling or suspending the licence." 6. A look at the aforesaid provision goes to show that before taking decision in regard to suspending or cancelling the licence it is incumbent on the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti to look at the charge sheet and the a explanation of the concerned firm and thereafter to pass a reasoned order. But from a close scrutiny of the impugned orders it appears that the provisions contained in sub-rue (5) of Rule 71 of 1963 Rules have not been followed by the respondents Krishi Upaj Mandi Samitis. The explanations of the petitioner-firms have not at all been referred to. The appellate authority had also not appreciated the afore quoted mandatory provision. Observance of sub-rule (5) of Rule 71 is not an empty formality but it is the duty of concerned Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti to follow it in letter and spirit. Order of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti must be founded upon reasons stated in the order. 7. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Krishna Swami Vs. Union of India & others, (1992) 4 SCC 605 , indicated that the administrative order must be based on reasons. Order of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti must be founded upon reasons stated in the order. 7. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Krishna Swami Vs. Union of India & others, (1992) 4 SCC 605 , indicated that the administrative order must be based on reasons. It was observed in pars 47 thus : "Undoubtedly, in a Parliamentary democracy governed by rule of law, any action decision or order of any statutory/public authority/ functionary must be founded upon reasons stated in the order or staring from the record. Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21." 8. As the impugned orders are not based on reasons, the same stand vitiated being contrary to sub-rule (5) of Rule 71 of 1963 Rules. I do not find any force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. Assigning the reasons in the impugned orders was the duty of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samitis, it cannot be termed as a mere technicality. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, I allow the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders of cancellation of licences as well as the appellate orders. There shall be no orders as to costs.Petition allowed. *******