M/S. Farm Agrochemicals vs. The State Of Ap.

Held

The Court directed the respondents to follow the provisions and guidelines stipulated in S.O.No.882(E) dated 23.02.2021 and S.O.No.2333 dated 14.06.2021 while dealing with the petitioner's products. The petitioner was directed to make an application within two weeks of receiving the order to the Controller for grant of provisional registration in Form G-1, along with product details, specifications, label, and other required particulars, and a certificate from the State Government in Form G-2 confirming the product's market availability prior to the order's publication and no reported harmful effects. Upon receipt of the application, the respondents were directed to process it for provisional registration and grant a certificate in Form G-3 within four weeks, as per the control order. The respondents were also directed to permit the petitioner to deal with the subject products in the interim. The Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly, with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Farm Agrochemicals, filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' interference with the sale and distribution of bio-stimulants. The petitioner contended that bio-stimulants were included in the Fertilizers (Inorganic, Organic, Mixed) Control Order, 1985, via S.O.No.882(E) dated 23-02-2021, but standards for them had not yet been specified in Schedule-VI. The petitioner argued that without specified standards, the respondents were not entitled to interfere. The petitioner also stated that despite the notification allowing provisional registration applications (Form-G), the respondents were not accepting them. The respondents countered that the petitioner had not submitted bio-efficacy trial reports and results pertaining to non-toxicity. They referred to the same notification S.O.No.882(E) and a previous Division Bench order, highlighting that guidelines were to remain in force until appropriate legislation was made. They also cited G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 10.03.2017, to regulate manufacturing and marketing of bio-products.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are entitled to interfere with the sale and distribution of bio-stimulants by the petitioner, given that standards for bio-stimulants have not been specified in Schedule-VI of the Fertilizers (Inorganic, Organic, Mixed) Control Order, 1985, as per S.O.No.882(E) dated 23-02-2021? 2. Whether the respondents are obligated to accept applications for provisional registration of bio-products/bio-stimulants in Form-G, as permitted by S.O.No.882(E) dated 23-02-2021? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the sale and distribution of bio-stimulants because the Central Bio-stimulants Committee has not specified standards for them and included them in Schedule-VI. They further contended that the respondents are not accepting applications for provisional registration in Form-G, despite the notification allowing it. Respondents' Contentions: The respondents argued that the petitioner has not submitted bio-efficacy trial reports and results pertaining to non-toxicity. They referred to S.O.No.882(E) and a Division Bench observation that guidelines would remain in force until legislation is made. They also cited G.O.Ms.No.18 to regulate bio-products and prevent spurious items. They pointed to sub-clause (4) of Clause 3 of S.O.No.882(E) allowing continued manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, stock, or exhibition of biostimulants for two years if no standards are specified, subject to an application for provisional registration.