JUDGMENT 1. - In this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged cancellation of their licences issued under the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder. 2. For appreciating the controversy facts of writ petition No. 6198/2005 are being taken. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 27.04.2005 whereby his licence has been cancelled. 4. The facts in brief of the case are that the petitioner was holding licence No. 1192 and since he could not shift his business to the newly constructed market yard, therefore, his licence has been cancelled in respect of which approval was given by the Directorate of Agriculture Marketing on 30.1.2004. It is mentioned in the impugned order that opportunity was given to the petitioner under Rule 71 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Product Market Rules, 1963 but no satisfactory reply was given, therefore, it was held that the petitioner is guilty of violating conditions of licence. The petitioner has also stated one more fact in the writ petition that before cancellation of the said licence on 27.4.2005, a charge sheet was issued on 8.12.2004. 5. Vide interim order dated 18.8.2005, operation of the impugned order has been stayed. 6. Mr. Indrajeet Singh has filed reply to the writ petition mentioning therein that there were about 26 traders who are not doing the regular business in the mandi yard and they have also not deposited the due allotment fee, therefore, the respondent has taken decision for cancellation of the licence of such firms in its meeting dated 20.9.2000 and sent proposals for approval of the Director, Agriculture Marketing. The respondent received approval of the `ate Government on 30.1.2004 and subsequently, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner on 8.12.2004 and after issuance of the charge sheet the licence was cancelled on 27.4.2005 because the petitioner failed to submit any reply. 7. Submission of Mr. Samdaria is that after taking decision for cancellation of the licence in the meeting dated 20.9.2000 and subsequent approval dated 30.1.2004, the issuance of charge sheet on 8.12.2004 is of no avail. Rather, the same amounts to putting the cart before the horse resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. Submission of Mr. 7. Submission of Mr. Samdaria is that after taking decision for cancellation of the licence in the meeting dated 20.9.2000 and subsequent approval dated 30.1.2004, the issuance of charge sheet on 8.12.2004 is of no avail. Rather, the same amounts to putting the cart before the horse resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. Submission of Mr. Indrajeet Singh is that the cancellation order dated 20.9.2000 was tentative in nature subject to the approval of the State Government but he has not been able to submit the fact that how after approval of the State Government on 30.1.2004 charge sheet could be issued on 8.12.2004. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the writ petition and considered rival submissions of the counsel. 10. I am of the considered opinion that no decision of cancellation could be taken by the State Government before issuance of the charge sheet and further providing an opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the charges levelled against him as required under Rule 71 of the Rules of 1963. Apart from above, the said order is violative of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 11. In addition to the above, Mr. Sunil Samdaria has brought to my notice order dated 18.7.2006 passed by the Director, Agriculture Marketing wherein in similar circumstances cancellation of licence has been set aside. 12. Accordingly, all the aforesaid writ petitions are allowed, orders of cancellation of licence are set aside and subsequent proceedings taken in the matter are quashed and set aside and original licence of the petitioners are restored.All writ petition allowed. *******