M/S. Amara Agro Chemicals vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Amara Chemicals, filed a writ petition challenging the action of the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, in interfering with the manufacturing, sale, and distribution of its bio-products/bio-stimulants. This interference was based on Memo No. PP.II(1)2085/2005 and Letter No. PP.II(1)2085/2005, both dated January 21, 2006. The petitioner argued that these products are not covered by the Insecticides Act, 1968, or the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act, 1985, and that stocking, storing, or selling them from licensed premises should not be prohibited, especially in the absence of prescribed standards. The petitioner also possesses a GST Registration Certificate. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture, acknowledged the petitioner's position.
Held
The Court disposed of the Writ Petition by issuing similar directions as in W.P.No.3352 of 2023. While the specific directions from W.P.No.3352 of 2023 are not detailed in this judgment, the implication is that the Court found merit in the petitioner's challenge to the respondents' interference. The reasoning likely stems from the petitioner's argument that their products are not covered by the cited Acts and the lack of prescribed standards, coupled with the respondents' concession. The Court's decision to follow previous orders suggests a consistent judicial stance on similar matters. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with the aforementioned directions, and no order was made as to costs. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of the 2nd respondent in interfering with the manufacturing, sale, and distribution of the petitioner's bio-products/bio-stimulants, by issuing Memo No. PP.II(1)2085/2005 and Letter No. PP.II(1)2085/2005 dated January 21, 2006, is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, particularly in the absence of any notification prescribing standards for these products, thereby violating the petitioner's right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their bio-products/bio-stimulants are not covered by the Insecticides Act, 1968, or the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act, 1985. They contended that the respondents' interference is illegal and arbitrary, especially since no standards have been notified for these specific products. They relied on previous writ petitions and appeals disposed of by the High Court and Division Bench, copies of which were filed with the petition. Respondents' Contention: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture conceded to the petitioner's position.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the dllowing: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P,MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.63l3 of 2023 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been hled seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2"d respondent in interfering with the manufacturing, sale and distribution of bio-products/bio-stimulants of petitioner-Firm, by issuing Memo No.PP.ll(1)2085/2005, dated 21.O1.2006 and Letter No. PP.ll(1)2085/2005, dated 21.O1.2006 as being illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the 2"d respondent not to interfere with the manufacturing, sale ald distribution of bio- products/bio-stimulants of petitioner-Firm and to pass such other order or orders.
Brief facts leading to the liling of the present writ petiton are that the petitioner-Firm claims to be engaged in the supply of bio-products/bio-stimulants without usage of \ an) toxic chemicals. He submitted that the petitioner-Firm has also obtained GST Registration Certilicate bearing I I i No.36ABYF \6932C126, daLed 22.06.2022. [t is submitted that vide 1 t-ter dat,ed 21 .0L.2006, the 2n(t resf,ondent has issued prc :r:edings, stating that the bir;-pr oducts/bio- stimulants lre not covered by the Insecticicl,:s A.ct, 1968 or the Fertiiiz, r Control (Order) Act, 1985 arrl ttLe stocking, storing or 1 1e sa-le of the said products fr,rr:r the licensed premises w [1 not br: permitted, therefore, th,: prresent writ petition is f ted. Thereafter, several writ peti[ions were Iiled challenging ttre similar orders of the rr:sporrclen:s ald this Court in a ..umber of writ petitions i.e. in \v.P.1io.25293 of 2Ol4 &, batr h, have disposed of the same ancl tht: directions were m<rdifir I bv the Division Bench in W.A.ll:,.1122 of 2016 & W.A.No.1 36 of 2016 dated 03.11.2016. It is further submitted tt a1 the copies of the above orders a;e fLled as part of the writ pi pers.
Learr :<1 i\ssistant Government Phacler l,rr .{griculture has also con ;:mr:d the said position. \, To PSK GJP
In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of with similar directions as in W.P.No.3352 of 2023. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sha1l also stand closed. T. SRINIVAS //// DEPUTY REGISTIAR ;j SECTION OFFICER
Two CD CoPies 1 . The Principal cretary, Agriculture and Co.operation Dept., Secretariat, Hvderabad. State of Telanqana. 2. ifr;tffi;issionei"no birtitor of Agriculture, S-late of Telangana, opp' L B' Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, I elangana slate' s. one aCio sRl B.V.APARNA LAKSHMI, AdvocateIoPUCI. . +. i*o ccs to Gp FOR AGRICULTURE, High court for the state ot I erangana, at Hyderabad. IOUTI
HIGH COUR T DATED:1 3tO,VbO23 ORDER WP.No.6313 rf 2023 DISPOSING ( IF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CC STS. ,'-' .(': i il ,.ir-4 _'. r, $' 1r 1 2 0 I,11|l ?n23 Ii), lit 4fra,, I I I I I I
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.