1. ' SALMAN HAMID, J.-- The petitioner by way of present constitutional petition has sought declaration that the license be issued to him for cattle piri in respect of Notified Market Area as stipulated under section 2(e) of the Agricultural Produce Market Act of 1939 (Act 1939) under section 6 thereof. A further declaration has been sought from this Court that since the license to the respondents Nos.6 and 7 has been issued in violation of the provisions of the Act 1939 and the Rules of 1940, the same be cancelled and a fresh license be issued in respect of the notified Market Area strictly in accordance to the Act 1939 and the Rules of 1940.
2. ' Briefly stated the facts of the present case for the purposes of seeking above declaration are that the petitioner is a resident of K N. Shah area which is a Notified Market Area as mentioned above.
3. And that on or about 3-6-2010 the petitioner applied for a license for a period of one year for catlle piri for that Area. Despite receipt of the application of the petitioner, the same was not entertained and/or the procedure as laid down under section 6 of Act 1939 was not followed. No reason for not granting a license whatsoever was communicated. Instead the license was issued/renewed in favour of respondents Nos.6 and 7.
4. ' As against this fact, as mentioned by the petitioner, the respondents in rebuttal stated that since the Notified Market Area is a small area where there already exists a licensed person to carry out the work, there was no occasion to issue fresh license; and that since the criminal cases were pending against the petitioner license was not issued/renewed to him being hit by the provision of section 6 of the Act 1939 and 'that the license was issued to the respondents Nos.6 and 7 because they were already holding the license. Suffice to state that the respondents were at liberty to respond to the application of the petitioner dated 3-6-2010 incorporating therein all that has been stated in the comments. This was not done.
5. ' Today yet another Petition No,1057 of 2010 was fixed before us, filed by the respondents Nos.6 and 7 herein who had made a grievance that they were issued license under the Act 1939 and the Rules of 1940 effective from 1-7-2009 upto 30-6-2010 i.e. For a period of one year and that prior to its determination the concerned respondents who are the respondents Nos.2 and 3 in C.P. No,1345 of 2010 acting under the influence of same political persons cancelled the same renewal of which was sought through the petition filed by them i.e. C.P. No,1057 of 2010. However, today when that petition was taken up the counsel appearing for the petitioners therein (respondents Nos.6 and 7 in the present petition) did not press the same on the ground that their license has been renewed and they have no grievance left against the respondents.
6. Looking at the present petition it would be clear that an application dated 3-6-2010 was moved by him for issuance of license and therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 to have processed such an application as required under section 6 of the Act 1939 before renewal of the license of respondents Nos.6 and 7 inasmuch as that prima facie the application which was filed by the petitioner was prior in time and that the license of respondents Nos.6 and 7 was expiring on 30-6-2010. Even otherwise nothing was brought on record to show that application in the prescribed form was made by the respondents Nos.6 and 7 for renewal of their license for the period commencing from 1st July, 2010 and ending on 30-6-2011.
7. Above being the position it becomes patently clear that the licence that was renewed in favour of the respondents Nos.6 and 7 lacks transparency, and violates the procedure as laid down under section 6 of Act 1939. Refusal or grant/renewal of license was not followed altogether. We therefore, direct the respondents Nos.1 to 3 to process the application dated 3-6-2010 of the petitioner along with any other application filed by other persons and also application of the respondents Nos.6 and 7, if any strictly in accordance with section 6 of the Act 1939 and the applicable Rules 1940 and only then issue the license to the person found entitled.
8. ' The petition is disposed of in terms of the above.