IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2115 of 2010. M/s Kurmanchal Fruit Suppliers. … Petitioners. Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Haldwani and others. …Respondents. Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. J.C.Belwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents. Date December 15, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Interim Relief Application No. 10456 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- (a) Call for the record of the case and issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated 4- 12-2010 passed by the respondent no. 3 contained in letter No. Kri. U.Ma.Sa./2010-1646 dated 4.12.2010 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) and order dated 18-9-2010 passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 contained in letter no. Kri.U.Ma.Sa./2010-1152 dated 18-9-2010 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to stop the petitioner from working at his allotted shop no. C-114 in the Mandi Samiti Sthal, Haldwani, district Nainital. (c) Such other relief be granted, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper and award cost to the petitioner. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1678 of 2010, M/s Kurmanchal Fruit Suppliers Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Haldwani and two others before this Court against the order dated 18- 9-2010 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3. The said writ petition was disposed of finally by this Court vide order dated 24-9-2010 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition in case the petitioner feels aggrieved by the fresh order, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the instant writ petition. In the order dated 24-9-2010, this Court had also directed the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass a fresh order 2 regarding the shop in question, considering the judgment dated 10-12- 2009 passed by this Court in W.P.M.S. No. 1949 of 2009, M/s Harish Singh Bachi Singh & Co. and others Vs. Director, Mandi Samiti and another. Till then, the impugned order dated 18-9-2010 was kept in abeyance. According to the petitioner, an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, but the Secretary-respoondent no. 3 passed the order impugned in this petition dated 4-12-2010 in a cryptic manner and the order is altogether a non-speaking order. Moreover, the direction given by this Court has not been complied with by the respondent no.3. I have perused the impugned order. In the impugned order, even there is no reference of this Court’s earlier order dated 10- 12-2009. Direction was given to the Secretary concerned to consider the objection and to take decision considering the earlier judgment and order dated 10-12-2009, referred to above. Learned counsel appearing for the Mandi Samiti has also prayed that liberty be given to the Secretary, Mandi Samiti-respondent no.3 to pass a reasoned fresh order and the writ petition may be disposed of without counter version at the admission stage. In the above facts and circumstances, the respondent no. 3 is directed to pass fresh orders in the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the light of the directions given by this Court in the order dated 24-9-2010 as well as the earlier order dated 10-12-2009 passed in earlier WPMS No. 1949 of 2009, as already directed by this Court. The respondent no. 3 shall take a fresh decision in the matter expeditiously as far as possible. Till then the order dated 4-12-2010 (Annexure-8 to the petition) as well as the order dated 18-9- 2010 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall be kept in abeyance. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP