Avani Crop Care vs. The Commissioner And Director Of Food And Agriculture For The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Avani Crop Care, represented by its proprietor, sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the respondent, the Commissioner and Director of Food and Agriculture for the State of Telangana, from interfering with its manufacturing and sales of various bio-products. The petitioner had obtained a GST Registration Certificate. The respondent's action of interfering without collecting samples for analysis was challenged as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional rights. The petitioner also relied on previous High Court orders in similar matters. The present writ petition was presented as being covered by an earlier order dated 08.08.2019 in W.P.No.16957 of 2019.
Held
The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the order dated 08.08.2019 in W.P.No.16957 of 2019. The Court directed the respondents not to interfere with the business of the petitioner. However, it was clarified that this order does not preclude the respondent-authorities from conducting inspections in accordance with the law and taking appropriate steps as warranted by law. The reasoning adopted by the Court was based on the precedent set in the earlier writ petition, which itself was influenced by guidelines formulated by a learned Single Judge and confirmed with modifications by a Division Bench. These guidelines aimed to balance the rights of manufacturers/dealers with the need for regulatory oversight concerning bio-products, particularly to ascertain if they contained harmful substances or violated provisions related to insecticides or fertilizers. The Court emphasized that any action must follow due process and be based on credible information, not routine harassment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities can interfere with the manufacturing and sale of bio-products by the petitioner without collecting samples for analysis, thereby violating the petitioner's fundamental right to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the action of the respondent is arbitrary and illegal, contrary to previous High Court orders. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondent's interference was illegal and arbitrary, particularly because samples were not collected for analysis before taking action. They argued that such interference violated their fundamental right to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and was contrary to established High Court precedents. The petitioner also stated that they possessed a valid GST Registration Certificate. Respondent's arguments: The judgment notes that the respondent's arguments are not explicitly detailed in relation to the specific interference. However, the underlying context from the referenced previous judgment (W.P.No.16957 of 2019) indicates that the authorities have the power to inspect premises to ensure compliance with laws like the Insecticides Act and Fertilizer (Control) Order, and to verify if insecticides are being used in bio-products.
Sections Cited
Article 19(1)(g), Article 14, Insecticides Act, 1968, Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER l. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent not to interfere into the manufacturing process, sale and distribution of the Petitioners Bio-products '1 .EXPERT-G-Granules, 2.CHECKK-Powder, 3.AVANl- GOLD-Granules, 4.SPARK-Liquid, 5.KILLER- Liquid, 6.JEEVA-Liquid , 7. TRISHUL- Liquid, B.CHAMPION-Liquid, 9.ULTRA PLUS-Liquid, 10.ARJUN-Liquid , 11.RlDDER- Liquid 12.TEJ-Liquid, l3.BHEESHMA-Liquid,'14.DlAMOND-Liquid, 15.AVANl ZYNE-Liquid, I6.TRlZOLE-Powder etc., pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass
w PET NNo.13543 of2021 o Whenthemafieristakenup,itisrepresentedbylearned counsei appearing on both sides that this writ petition is covered to be disposed of in terms of the order dated 08'08'2019 in W'P'No'16957 oRpER: of 20i9. 5. One SPare CoPY //// .T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REflY4R SEGTION OFFICER In view of the above' for the reasons recorded in the''aforesaid ,r'rit petition, this writ petition is also disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the business of the petitioner' !,1.\\,eter, this order does not preclude the respondent-authorities from conducting inspections in accordance with law and taking appropriate steps as warranted by law' No order as to costs' Pending miscellaneous aPPlications' ifany, shall stand closed' to',1. an" Commissioner and Director o-f Food and Agriculture For The State of ' +;ir;;;;;,' 6pp tij lla silii';ir' Basheerbash'-Hvderabad'
OneCC to SRl. UMA DEVI NAMA/Advocate [OPUC] 3.TwoCCStoGPFoRAGRICULTURE'HighCourtforthestateofTelangana. rS,Y* ,,'*+. c,'cart "p. ;u" ffi '"'t"t)'i":""'*r' *'^ieqet lz'"tl '3 4.-Two CD CoPies rsn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T'AMARNATH GOI]D Zr
HIGH COURT DATED:171A612021 ORDER WP.No.13543 ol 2021 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS, vro "b\ b 2 4 jttfl2uo2l $ o Y )c 11: !) 1HE srA sr.:('.!- ,/
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16957 of 2019 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Governtnent Pleader for Food and Agricuiture'
The petitioner claims to have involved in manufacture, sale and marketing of Bio-products. Petitioner alleges that the respondents are illegally interfering in their activities and orally informed the petitioner not to sell and market their Bio-products. In support of the relief sought in the writ petition, reliance is placed on the guidelines formulated by the learned Single Judge in the judgment rendered in W.P.No.25293 of 2014 & batch dated 10.07'2015 as confirmed with certain modifications by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos' 1 122 and 1 136 0f 2016 dated 03.1 1.2016-
No material is placed on record to show that the petitioner is complying with the guidelines formulated by the learned Single Judge in the judgment. It is also appropriate to note from the judgments rendered by the leamed Single Judge and the Division Bench that the Designated authority is competent to inspect,the premises to find out whetherthereiscomplianceoftherequirementsandintheguiseof making and selling Bio-products, whether insecticides are used in thoseproducts'Therefore,theinspectionbytheauthoritiestoverify compliance of the requirements as per law and directions issued by this Court cannot be faulted' \
P,\'R,J tt P 1\'o.16957 of 20 t 9
However, to make the issue clear, the observations and directions of the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 17 to 19 are extracted herein. "
It is not clear from the averments rnade in the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions, whether all the petitioners are indulging in similar type of activities or not. It is also not clear whether all the petitioners are manufacturers or dealers in the bio- products. The bio-product is a broad word which may include a bio-fertilizer or some other material substance containing insecticidal properties. But, the product in which the petitioners are dealing is being used in agriculture only. The case of the petitioners is that in the absence ofany law, the respondents cannot interfere with their activities, whereas, the respondents state that in the absence of any information fumished by the petitioners, they are handicapped in regulating their activities. 2 18. hold that In the said circumstances, this Court cannot the activities of the petitioners and interference of the respondents are totally iltegal balance has to be maintained llt the f'acts the A and clrcumstances of the case, but such balance rnust have the sanction of law. The existing provisions are the provisions of Insecticides Act and Fertilizer (Control) Order. The provisions of these two enactments are sufficient to regulate the activities of the petitioners. Before taking any action on suspicion, it is necessary for the authorities to take a sample of the product in which the petitioners are dealing. On the basis of such -1 PNR,J WP No,16957 of 2019 sample only, the respondent authorities can see whether one or the other provisions of the said enactments can be applied. The respondents cannot interfere with the activities of the petitioners without following due process of law. The petitioners are entitled to exercise their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (l)(g) of the Constitution of lndia, but the said right is subject to a restriction enunciated in the said Article.
Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: i) The petitioners shall not deal with bio-products without maintaining proper packing and marking of the product. The packing of bio-products shall contain the ingredients included in the product, analyical procedure and their percentage. This enables the authority to verify the contents ofthe product. ii) The manufacturer of every bio-product should intimate the concerned Commissioner of Agriculture with regard to the manufacturing activity undertaken by it with name of the product, process and its content. The Conrrnissioner of Agriculture need not grant any permissioir and mere information from the manufacturer is enough for this purpose. The Commissioner of Agriculture shall issue an acknowledgement of such information. iii) The dealer of bio-products should have the information with regard to the source of purchase of bio-products and shall maintain a register for the said purpose in order to enable the authorities to inspect the stock from time to time'
.1 P,\R,I IYP No,16957 of 2019 iv) It is for the authorities to inspect the bio- products in the location of the manufacturer prior to its despatch to the dealer or in the location of the dealer and take sample thereof in order to verity whether any such product contains harmful substances attracting the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 or used as a fertilizer violating the provisions of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. The sample of the product shall be collected from the said source by the authorities under the signature of the persons dealing with bio-products and the authority who is collecting for the purpose of sending it to the appropriate Laboratory in order to verify the contents ofthe said product. v) From a copy of the report if any prohibited substance is found by the authority, the authority shall issue a notice along with a copy of the report to the persons dealing with the product and take necessary action against such persons either under the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 or Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. After receipt of the explanation from the person, the authority can pass appropriate orders under the provisions of the said enactments. ni) The report from the concerned Laboratory shall be obtained as expeditiously as possible, preferably not later than a week from the date of collection of the sample and till such time, the concemed authority can withhold manufacture and sale of bio-product. Against the order passed by the authority who collected sample, the aggrieved party can file an appeal to the higher authority as provided in the above provisions if so advised. vii) The collection of samples and the process of passing order shall not be resorted to routinely but WP No.t6951of)0,9 should be on credible information that the product is causing darnage to the public agriculture activity and on prima facie satisfaction of such information. viii) The respondents shall not violate the law and resort to unnecessary harassment of the manufacturers or dealers in a routine manner.',
In appeal, the Division Bench observed as follows: "While we are in complete agreement with the submission of Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner, that there cannot be an omnibus categorisation, of all bio-products as insecticides, for the purpose of taking action under the Act, the grounds on which the Insecticide Inspector has reason to believe, that insecticides are being sold in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Ru1es, would depend upon the facts of each case, and cannot be circumscribed by way of guidelines issued by this Court. The guidelines prescribed, in the order under appeal, can only supplemer.rt and not supplant the 1aw, and would remain in force only till appropriate legislation- either plenary or subordinate -is made in this regard' Suffice it, while making it clear that there cannot be an omnibus categorisation of all bio-products as insecticides for taking action against the dealers of those goods, to also make it clear that the guidelines' prescribed in the order under appeal' shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the powers conferred on the concerned authorities under the Act and the Rules' We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on whether or not any of these bio-products are insecticides, as these are matters which the authorities ll/P No,16957 ol2019 concerned are required to examine in accordance with the provisions of the Act' the Rules made thereunder' and the guidelines stipulated in the order under appeal' The order under appeal is modifred to the extent indicated hereinabove, and the Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingiy' The miscellaneous petitions pending, ifany, shall also stand disposed of' No costs'"
In view thereof, subject to petitioner complying with the guidelines stipulated by the learned Single Judge' the respondents shall not interfere with the manufacturing, distribution and sale of Bio-products. However, this order does not preclude the respondent authorities to inspect in accordance with the provisions oflnsecticides Act and the Fertilizer (Control) Order, if so require, by following due procedure and taking appropriate steps as warranted by law.
Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending in these writ petitions, if ar.ry, shall stand closed. P. NAVEEN RAO, J August 08,2019 KTL 6
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.