M/S. Vastek Industries LLP vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Vastek Industries LLP, is engaged in the manufacturing, sale, and distribution of bio-products/bio-stimulants. The petitioner obtained a GST Registration Certificate. The 2nd respondent, the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, issued Memo No. PP.II(1)2085/2005 dated 21.01.2006 and Letter No. PP.II(1)2085/2005 dated 21.01.2006. These communications stated that the bio-products/bio-stimulants were not covered by the Insecticides Act, 1968, or the Fertilizer Control (Order) Act, 1985, and therefore, stocking, storing, or selling these products from licensed premises would not be permitted. The petitioner contends this action is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to declare the 2nd respondent's action as illegal and to direct the respondent not to interfere with their business. The judgment notes that similar orders have been challenged in previous writ petitions, with directions modified by a Division Bench.
Held
The Court disposed of the Writ Petition with similar directions as in W.P.No.3352 of 2021. The judgment does not explicitly detail the specific findings on the legality, arbitrariness, or unconstitutionality of the 2nd respondent's actions. However, by disposing of the petition with directions similar to a previous case, it implies a resolution based on established principles or prior pronouncements. The operative direction is the disposal of the writ petition. No costs were awarded. 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 bio-products/bio-stimulants of the petitioner-Firm, by issuing Memo No. PP.II(1)2085/2005 dated 21.01.2006 and Letter No. PP.II(1)2085/2005 dated 21.01.2006, is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, particularly in the absence of a prescribed notification for standards? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the 2nd respondent's actions were illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. They sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the 2nd respondent from interfering with their business of manufacturing, selling, and distributing bio-products/bio-stimulants, including from licensed premises of dealers/stockists under the Insecticides Act, 1968, and the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act, 1985. The petitioner also highlighted that similar orders had been challenged in previous writ petitions, with directions modified by a Division Bench. Respondents' Contention: The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture confirmed the position stated by the petitioner.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE H( N'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DE\II TIRIT PETITION No.6310 of 2023 ORDER This W Mandamus de interfering witl bio-products/b Memo No.PP.ll No. PP.II(1)208 arbitrary and c interfere with tl products/bio-sr other order or c
Brief fa, petiton are tha ttre supply of 1 any toxic chem has also obta 'it Petition has been hled seeking a. Writ of :laring the action of the 2"d r,:s;poredent in :he manufacturing, sale and distrit>ution of o -stimulants of petitioner- Firm, by issuing L|2O85/2OO5, dated 21.07.2006 and Letter ,l2OO5, rlated 21.01.2006 as bein6; illegal and ,nserquer:Ltly to direct the 2"d resprtr.dent not to e rnalulacturing, sale and distriltt.Ltion of bio- .nrulantsr of petitioner-Firm and [:r p€rss such 'd ers. ts leadireg to the filing of the p.:esent writ the petitioner-Firm claims to br: enlJaged in ic,-products/bio-stimulants withot.Lt usage of cals;. H,: submitted that the pe Liliorrer-Firm nec[ GST Registration Certificerl.e bearing w.P.No.6310 0f 2023 No.36AAWFV3950G1ZL, dated 18.01.2023. It is submitted that vide letter dated 2l.0l.2006, the 2"a respondent has issued proceedings, stating that the bio-products/bio- stimulants are not covered by the Insecticides Act, 1968 or the Fertilizer Control (Order) Act, 1985 and the stocking, storing or the sale of the said products from the licensed premises will not be permitted, therefore, thd present writ petition is filed. Thereafter, several writ petitions were hled challenging the similar orders of the respondents and this Court in a number of writ petitions i.e. in W.P.No.25293 of 2OL4 & batch, have disposed of the same and the directions were modified by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1l22 of 2016 & W.A.No.1136 of 2016 dated 03.11.2016. It is further submitted that the copies of the above orders are filed as part of the writ papers.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture has also confirmed the said position.
'W.P.No.6310 of 2023 In vieu c,f the same, the Writ Petition rs; dir;posed of with similar c rections as in W.P.No.3352 of l>.r)2i\. There shall be n() orc:t'as to t:osts Miscell neous applications, if any pendir g, sha-ll also stand closed //// . T. SRINIVAS DEiPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION dFFICER To, The Principal I ecretary' Agriculture and Co-operation Del)l ' Secretariat' T S ' 1 Hvderabad. , T#6#;iss rner and Director of Agriculture' opp L'B :itadium' -' Basheerbagh, I .S. HYderabad 3 i;;'cc; t"' t p ron'ncilidrJlrune ,Hish court for th3 :itate of - ietinqana,rt lYderabad [OUT] 4. o#'ic'i; M 'l e. v. nphRNA mxsHllt, Advocate [ol']t rc]
Two CD coPie ; BM GJP
HIGH COUR] DATED:1 3103'2023 ORDER WP.No.6310 c f 2023 DISPOSING O F THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CC STS o,.r 2 [ i\,1i ']n?3 N.i:& I ,,V 2,D>> ,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.