Multiple licences cannot be barred without express statutory restraint; licence misuse must be addressed through statutory cancellation or renewal refusal.

The Haryana Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 does not itself prohibit a person from holding more than one licence, and no rule had been framed to bar a second-category licence merely because an applicant already held a first-category licence. Rule 17 contemplates separate licences for different places and categories of activity, while Rule 24 recognises overlapping roles in the sale and purchase chain. Where a licensee misuses a licence or breaches conditions, the proper statutory response is cancellation or refusal of renewal under Section 10(2), not a blanket administrative prohibition against multiple licences.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents could refuse renewal or issue of a second category licence solely because the applicant already held a first category licence under the Haryana Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 and the Rules made thereunder.

Analysis: Section 8(1) permits business in agricultural produce under a licence granted in accordance with the Act, the Rules and the licence conditions, but it does not itself prohibit more than one licence. Section 43(2)(viii) empowers the State Government to frame rules regulating the issue and renewal of licences, yet no rule had been framed to restrict an applicant to a single licence or to require different names for the two categories. Rule 17 expressly contemplates separate licences for more than one place and for different categories of activity, which shows that multiple licences are not barred by the statutory scheme. Rule 24 also recognises roles that may overlap in the sale and purchase chain. If a licensee misuses the licences or breaches conditions, the statutory remedy lies in cancellation or refusal to renew under Section 10(2), not in a blanket administrative prohibition.

Conclusion: The respondents could not reject renewal or refuse a second licence merely on the ground that the petitioners already held another licence; they could act only on other lawful grounds, if any.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to consideration of their renewal applications without being disqualified solely because they held a licence in the other category, while the authorities retained power to proceed for any other lawful breach.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory or rule-based restriction, administrative directions cannot prohibit the grant or renewal of multiple licences, though action may be taken for breach of licence conditions under the statute.

---