ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 11.7.2011 passed by the Dy. Director/Licensing Officer (Seed), Kisan Kalyan and Krishi Vikas Department, Betul and order dated 4.2.2012 passed by the appellate authority whereby the order of the competent authority cancelling the petitioner’s licence granted under the provisions of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 has been affirmed. 2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner is a registered cooperative society and involved in procurement and sale of soyabean seeds through Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Societies and has been granted a licence under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 which was valid upto 31.3.2014. The petitioner, had supplied soyabean seeds to the farmers for the Kharif season 2011 in respect of which certain complaints were made by the agriculturist/villagers on the basis of which a team was constituted by the Collector and thereafter the impugned order dated 11.7.2011 was passed cancelling the licence of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved had filed an appeal before the appellate authority which also suffered dismissal on 4.2.2012, hence this petition. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without following the procedure prescribed by Clause 15 of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 which statutorily requires giving of an opportunity of hearing before cancelling the licence. It is further submitted that the petitioner was initially given a notice proposing cancellation of his licence on 30.6.2011 in respect of soyabean seeds JS 9752 variety distributed by the petitioner in lot No. 154239 whereas the impugned order of cancellation dated 11.7.2011 has been passed alleging supply of bad quality soyabean seeds of the variety JS 335 and, therefore, the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing in respect of soyabean seeds of the variety JS 335 supplied by the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the complaints received by the Collector from the villagers of village Lakkadjam was in respect of Lot Nos. 4. It is further submitted that the complaints received by the Collector from the villagers of village Lakkadjam was in respect of Lot Nos. 154227, 154229, 154231 and 154232 who had been supplied soyabean seeds through the society in Bheempur in respect of which after enquiry and inspection it has clearly been stated that the soyabean seeds in respect of the aforesaid lots are of the requisite certification in the report dated 18.8.2011 submitted by the Seed Examination Laboratory, Gwalior, as is evident from the letter of the Dy. Director, Kisan Kalyan and Krishi Vikas, Betul dated 8.9.2011 filed alongwith the petition on page 50. 5. It is submitted that as the soyabean seeds, in respect of which complaints had made by the agriculturists, were found to be of the requisite quality and certification, no action could have been taken against the petitioner but the authority concerned has issued the impugned order of cancellation by holding that the soyabean seeds supplied by the petitioner to the villagers of village Chillor of the JS 335 variety Lot No. 154228 was below the specified quality and certification, totally overlooking the fact that there was no complaint by any of the villagers of village Chhillor in respect of Lot No. 154228. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that when the petitioner pointed out the aforesaid illegality and irregularity in the proceedings taken against the petitioner before the appellate authority in his appeal, the appellate authority with a view to overcome the lacuna in the proceedings taken up by them issued a notice to the petitioner for the first time in the appeal proceedings on 9.9.2011 proposing to take action in respect of the soyabean seeds variety JS 335 Lot No. 154228 supplied by the petitioner to the villagers of village Chhillor and erroneously examined the original complainants who were agriculturists of village Lakkadjam and not Chillor and affirmed the order of the competent authority which is totally contrary to the provisions of Clause 15 of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 which clearly and specifically stipulates that the concerned licensee should be given a notice and opportunity of hearing in respect of the action proposed to be taken against him prior to passing of the order of cancellation, whereas in the instant case the authority cancelled the licence of the petitioner by order dated 11.7.2011 and thereafter gave a notice to the petitioner in the appeal proceedings on 9.9.2011. On the basis of the aforesaid submission it is stated that the impugned orders passed by the competent authority and the appellate authority deserve to be quashed. 7. The learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, per contra, submits that the petitioner supplied bad quality of soyabean seeds to the agriculturists in respect of which complaints were made against it. It is stated that on the complaint of the villagers, an enquiry was conducted and several complainants/agriculturists were examined and thereafter the impugned order of cancellation was passed. 8. It is submitted that the petitioner, in his support, had filed affidavits of as many as 15 villagers of the concerned village, to the effect that they were satisfied with the quality of soyabean seeds supplied to them, before the appellate authority pursuant to which the appellate authority had summoned and examined all the 15 villagers who had filed affidavits and all of them clearly stated that the affidavits filed by the petitioner had either been forged or had been obtained by misleading the executors of the affidavits. It is submitted that the fact that soyabean seeds supplied by the petitioner in Lot No. 154228 was deficient and below the prescribed quality is undisputed and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned orders. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The undisputed fact which emerged from a perusal of the documents filed by the respondents as well as the documents filed by the petitioner is that the complaints were filed against the petitioner by 10 villagers of village Lakkadjam in respect of soyabean seeds of JS 335 variety relating to Lot Nos. 154227, 154228, 154231 and 154232 as is evident from the documents filed by the respondents on pages 9 to 23 of the return and, therefore, there in no complaint that has been brought on record in respect of Lot No. 154228. It also appears from a perusal of the documents and the order passed by the appellate authority that the soyabean seeds of Lot Nos. 154228 was supplied to the agriculturist of village Chhilor and not of village Lakkadjam. It is further undisputed and apparent from a perusal of the internal page-11 of the impugned order dated 4.2.2012, Annexure P-7, passed by the appellate authority that the petitioner, for the first time, was served with a notice in respect of soyabean seeds of JS 335 variety in Lot No. 154228 on 9.9.2011 during the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of cancellation dated 11.7.2011. 10. It is also clear and undisputed from a perusal of the documents, Annexure R-3, filed by the respondents alongwith the return dated 30.6.2011 that the petitioner was initially served with a notice proposing cancellation of his licence alleging faulty supply of soyabean seeds of JS 9752 variety in Lot No. OCT-10-12-14-154239 whereas the impugned order of cancellation allegedly passed pursuant to the aforesaid notice dated 11.7.2011, Annexure P-3, relates to faulty supply of soyabean seeds of JS 335 variety for which no prior notice was served upon the petitioner. 11. 11. A persual of the impugned appellate order dated 4.2.2012 makes it further clear that the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by recording a conclusion that initially proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in respect of Lot No. 154239 but subsequently as the soyabean seeds supplied to the petitioner of JS 335 variety of Lot No. 154228 was found to be deficient, his licence was cancelled. However, the issues raised by the petitioner as enumerated above namely; that there was no complaint from the agriculturists of village Chhillor who had been supplied soyabean seeds of JS 335 variety of Lot No. 154228: that the complaints filed by the agriculturists of village Lakkadjam do not relate to Lot No. 154228; that the complaint of the villagers of village Lakkadjam related to lots which were found to be conforming to the quality prescribed by the Rules; that no notice prior to cancellation of the licence was issued to the petitioner in respect of soyabean seeds of JS 335 variety of Lot No. 154228; that the notice issued to him relate to a different variety and lot number of soyabean seeds; and the alleged violation of the provisions of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, have not been discussed by the authority in the impugned order. In fact the issuance of a notice to the petitioner, for the first time, during the pendency of the appeal in respect of soyabean seeds of JS 335 variety in respect of Lot No. 154228 is not disputed before this Court and is in fact evident from a perusal of the internal page 9 of the impugned appellate order. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 11.7.2011 and 4.2.2012 passed by the authorities appear to be prima facie in violation of the provisions of Clause 15 of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and, therefore, deserve to be and are hereby quashed. 13. It is, however, made clear that the authorities are at liberty to take action against the petitioner after following the procedure prescribed by the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, in respect of the faulty supply of soyabean seeds. 14. The petition, filed by the petitioner, stands allowed. In the facts of the case there shall be no orders as to costs.