M/S. K.K.Agri Genetics Private LTD vs. The Commissioner And Director Of Food And Agriculture
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, K.K. Agri Genetics Private Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to declare the respondent's action of interfering with the manufacturing and sales of its bio-products as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner argued that the respondent interfered without receiving samples for analysis, despite the petitioner possessing a GST registration certificate. The petitioner also contended that the respondent's actions violated Articles 14 and 19(g) of the Constitution and principles of natural justice, and were contrary to a previous High Court order in W.A. No. 1122 of 2016. The respondent is the Commissioner and Director of Food and Agriculture, State of Telangana. The dispute concerns the petitioner's bio-products, which are used in agriculture.
Held
The Court held that the matter was squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 16957 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019. In that order, the Court had disposed of writ petitions with specific directions. The Court stated that subject to the petitioner complying with the guidelines stipulated by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 16957 of 2019, the respondents shall not interfere with the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of bio-products. However, the Court clarified that this order does not preclude the respondent authorities from inspecting in accordance with the provisions of the Insecticides Act and the Fertilizer (Control) Order, if required, by following due procedure and taking appropriate steps as warranted by law. The reasoning was based on the previous judgment which balanced the petitioner's right to conduct business with the need for regulation and public safety, outlining specific procedures for sample collection, analysis, and action.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of the respondent in interfering with the manufacturing and sales of the petitioner's bio-products, without collecting samples for analysis, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(g) of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice, contrary to the orders of this Hon'ble High Court in W.A. No. 1122 of 2016? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondent's interference was illegal because samples were not collected for analysis, despite the petitioner having a GST registration. They contended that such actions violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(g) of the Constitution and principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied on the order of this Hon'ble High Court in W.A. No. 1122 of 2016, asserting that the current situation was covered by it. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the Government Pleader for Agriculture, did not present specific arguments in the provided text, but the context suggests they were defending their right to inspect and regulate bio-products. The judgment references a previous writ petition (W.P. No. 16957 of 2019) where the court noted that respondents are handicapped in regulating activities without information from petitioners and that designated authorities are competent to inspect premises to ascertain if insecticides are used in bio-products.
Sections Cited
Article 14, Article 19(g), 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
THE HON,BLE DT, JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER WRIT PETITION o.8354 OF 2021 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is flled by the petitioner, wherein, the following prayer is made: "fo issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in interfering with the i),iufurturirg and sales of Petitioner's bio-products l.Niiatr, 2,bpark, 3'Prince, 4'Express' 5'k-Max' 6.Exceltent, 7.Everest, B'Mirchi' 9 shakhti' .10'K-ZYME' 1'l,it-enaNr, 12 suPER, 13'DHARMA' 14'BHRAHMA' li.ViXru*, 16'Malik, lT Diamond' 1B'Khajana' ls tp'ot a;rua, zo'Cuninot, 21'Hunter' 22'KNocKour' )s.t[)ozo, 24.PRIDE, 25'PATELA' 26'Revenser' ,r: ;;;;, 28 MLA: 2I'MAL^LIKA'.^, 30 GANESHA' s'i.wdrubna, sz'ooto, 33'RIYAL' ^^ 34'MovEE' 35,NOTAA, SA'ruttil, 37,POLISE' 3B-'SARPANCH, 39.Cargo, qo'nuZ, 4T choice' - 42'Kingfisher' 43.Splendor, qi'i'iu'' 45'Lotus' 46'Samrat'
M F 3 BS, q e' c e n'i il' i'" ei'ic' a n o w ith o u't -rece i v i ng th e sampiiors*9'9i.11r'"yi::^i:':tzl,'lif ?;::':;;"';" set anatysis f:?!^::" T;7" "R;;i;:;ii"; ceitiricate K":':E:: " u : : :'7i Xil' o d i " i s s ie d b'v s'u p e r i n te n d e n t DeDartment or ci#iJ"iu"t iixes w'a'ansat urban'I' w a r a n s a t o' "'''; :'," ; :ii: : !), ot tZlrul i3 o1' o Jl{' [l ; itteoat, voitative ll,{')'ii'urZiiirti in" Prlnciptes of Co,'nstitution .o'. 'lnn contrary rc fie orders of this Natural Justice ano .cut,t,L,I ot t,^'i , ,l of 2016 and to 'i"o'iiil'iis-n cou'i in w'A'No"1122 or 'Pi'o"ii"n i'ner otrder or orders"' 2, Heard learned contended that the dated 08'08"2019' squarelY covered bY the order' the learned counsel for the petitioner' the resPondent and Government Pleader for Agriculture for perused the record 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner m atter is passed by this court in w P'No'16957 of 20t9' Therefore, this -----_#1
6 ]e eueouelal Jo aiels all Ljz lo /-969L oN.d.M u! 6 t02.80.80 palEp rapro or.lt Jo ^doc e qllM 6uolv dl . setdoS oc oM1 ., l r?l lno? q6rH .aJnuncuoy ,9, :r3oJ, r.?l"SA! lOndol aleconpv,euter.. ' ?r? " ffi ,; 1i;i{*}',nt[qifl*[ris? il? : lo elels eq1 'atn11ncr"r6y ulctJlo NotrcSS ,,\ UVUlSIC]U lNVISISSV v'tntNVW'tll10s oI /ado3 Snul, .pasoll puels lleqs uollrlad lllM slr.{l ur 6urpuad ,Iue gt ,suor1trad snoauellaf,srN 'slsof, ol se rapro ou aq llpqs araLlI .6I02 Jo 1569I.oN.d.M ur passed '6IOZ.BO.B0 palep ,Japro aLll jo sLural ur 3o pasodsrp osle st uolltled qr_r1,1 luasetd aq1 ,anoqe aql jo MalA uI .9 ',,/Aet ^q palue.ueM se als arytLdoLdde 6urye1 pue aLnpacotd enp 6utMoltoJ lq 'aLrnbaL os ! ,rep)O (1oL1uo2) raztlrlre! aql pue pV sepotpesul 1o suorsnotd eLfi qtrllA a)uepJone ut pedsut ol sarltJoq)ne luapuodsal er.fi apnpe.td lou saop JepJo stLll tJe^eMoH 'sltnpoLd-org Jo eles pue uoBnqulstp '5uunltegnueuL aL qllM alalu! lou lleLts sluapuodsaJ aLlt 'abpnt al6utS paueal aqj lq palelndqs sautpptn6 aql q!M Aut^ldLua) )auotltlad ol pa[qns 1ouaq] Mat^ uL, :.ropun se spPai /6TOZ lo 1S691'oN d',11 ur passed '6I02'80 80 palep /rap.ro aql Jo uorlrod antlerado aq1 'S 'uorlsan b ul s1l aLll stanoc '6197 BO B0 palep '6102 Jo LE69I oN d'M ur passed a6pnl a16u1s paureal aql Jo raplo aLll leql papa)uof, A1"rre1 seq alnllnct-r6y JoJ rapeald luauula^oo poureal aur 'v 'J apJo parla1a.l a^oqe a\'11 Jo sLulal ur 1o pasodslp aq Aeuu uollllad 1116 a \
HIGH COURT DATED:0610412021 ORDER WP.No.8354 o12021 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 4 2 B APB 2021 '1 lr t :. :) 1.) E SrAl-E :) )/ '_./ I
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.l6957 of 2019 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govemment Pleader for Food and Agriculture. and marketing ofBio-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 leamed 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.l122 and 1 136 of 201 6 dated 03. I | .2016. 3. No material is placed on record to show that the petitioner is complying with the guidelines formulated by the leamed 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 making and selling Bio-products, whether insecticides are used in those products. Therefore, the inspection by the authorities to verify compliance of the requirements as per law and directions issued by this Court cannot be faulted.
The petitioner claims to have involved in manufacture, sale whether there is compliance of the requirements and in the guise of PNR.J WP No.16957 of20I9
However, to make the issue clear, the observations and directions of the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 17 to 19 are extracted herein. *17. It is not clear from the averments made 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 of any law, the respondents cannot interfere with their activities, whereas, the respondents state that in the absence of any information furnished by the petitioners, they are handicapped in regulating their activities.
In the said circumstances, this Court cannot hold that the activities of the petitioners and the interference of the respondents are totally illegal. A balance has to be maintained in the facts and circumstances of the case, but such balance must 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 2
J ll/P 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 India, 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 ofbio-products shall contain the ingredients included in the product, analytical procedure and their percentage. This enables the authority to verify the contents of the product. ii) The manufacturer of every bio-product should intimate the concemed Commissioner of Agriculture with regard to the manufacturing activity undertaken by it with name of the product, process and its content. The Commissioner of Agriculture need not grant any permission 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.
WP 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 verifu 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 of the 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 ofthe explanation from the person, the authority can pass appropriate orders under the provisions of the said enactments. vi) The report from the concemed 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 concerned 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 tfP No.16957 of 2019
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 al1 bio-products as insecticides, for the purpose oftaking 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 ofthe Act and the Rules, 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 supplement and not supplant the law, 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 ofthose 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 concemed 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 5 should be on credible information that the product is causing damage 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."
l{P No.16957 of 2019 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 modified to the extent indicated hereinabove, and the Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingly. 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 of Insecticides Act and the Fertilizer (Control) Order, if so require, by following due procedure and taking appropriate steps as walranted by law' 6 1 Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of' No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending in these writ petitions, if any, P. NAVEEN RAO, J August 08, 2019 KTL shall stand closed.
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.