Naveen Kumar Kummari vs. The Commissioner And Director Of Food And Agriculture
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Naveen Kumar Kummari, proprietor of Deccan Bio Sciences, filed a writ petition seeking to prevent the respondent, the Commissioner and Director of Food and Agriculture, State of Telangana, from interfering with the manufacturing and sales of his bio-products. The petitioner possesses a GST registration number. The respondent's alleged interference occurred without taking samples for laboratory analysis. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent not to interfere with his business operations, including those of his dealers and stockists, under the Insecticides Act, 1968, and the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act, 1985. The writ petition was filed in the Telangana High Court.
Held
The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of a common order dated August 5, 2020, passed in Writ Petition No. 9801 of 2020 and batch. This common order, in turn, followed a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1122 and 1136 of 2016. The Commissioner of Agriculture had issued a memo on July 25, 2020, to all District Agricultural Officers, instructing them to strictly comply with the Division Bench orders and not to insist on specific court orders in each case. The Court warned that any violation of its orders or insistence on High Court orders would be viewed seriously, and necessary proceedings would be initiated against the erring authorities. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner and the State were responsible for ensuring the memo's implementation. The Court stated that if any party specifically named authorities committing violations in the future, appropriate orders would be passed on a case-to-case basis. The writ petitions were disposed of subject to these directions, with no order as to costs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of the Respondent in interfering with the manufacturing and sales of bio-products by the Petitioner, without obtaining samples for laboratory analysis, is arbitrary, vindictive, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and against the principles of natural justice and abuse of process of law. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent's interference was unjustified and illegal, particularly as it occurred without proper sampling and analysis of the bio-products. The petitioner relied on his GST registration as evidence of his legitimate business operations. The petitioner contended that the respondent's actions were arbitrary and violated constitutional rights. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, through the learned Advocate General and Government Pleader for Agriculture, submitted that in similar circumstances, the High Court had disposed of other writ petitions. The Commissioner of Agriculture filed an affidavit denying interference and stating that a memo was issued to all District Agricultural Officers instructing them not to insist on specific court orders for each case, thereby aiming to prevent unnecessary burden on the State and the Court.
Sections Cited
Insecticides Act 1968, Fertilizers Control (Order) Act 1985
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following : ORDER
Writ Petition No. 19523 of 2O2O ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Agriculture submits that in similar circumstances this Court disposed of W.P.No.9807 of 2O2O & batch, Lry Common Order dated 05.08.2020. In view of the same and for the reasons alike in the order dated 05.08.2020 in W.P.No.9801 of 2O2O & batch, this Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms of the said order. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this.,r'rit petition shall stand disposed of. Let a copy of the Common Order dated 05.08.2020 in WP No.980 1of 2O2O &, batch, be annexed u,ith this order. B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGI //// SECTI OFFICER To,
The Commissioner and Director of Food and Agriculture, The State of Telangana Opp to LB Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
One CC to Sri. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate IOPUC]
Two CCs to GP for Agriculture, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] (Along with a copy of order dated 05.08.2020 in W.P.No.9801 of 2020 and batch)
Two CD Copies CHR *o" HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
HIGH COURT DATED:0511112020 ORDER W.P.No.19523 of 2020 t- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COTS \->c '\L- ' 10 N'tv HES ( ia 2020 c L) \t\
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALI.A KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITIONS No. 9801. 9843,9857.9864. 10005, 11118. 11300. 11419 AND 11842 of 2020 COMMON ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Advocate General on behalf of the State and learned Government Pleader for Ag ricu lture and Cooperation. All these Writ Petitions are filed against the Agriculture Department arraying the State as well as the Commissioner & Director of Agriculture as party respondents. Taking into consideration the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1122 and 1136 of 2076, afflrming the learned Single Judge's Order in Writ Petitions No. 1347 of 2015 and 2989 of 2016 with certain modifications, number of writ petitions are being disposed of, essentially, extracting the judgment of the said Division Bench. The Orders of this Court were of 2015 and 2016. In spite of the same, when a large number of cases are flled on the pretext that the authorities are interfering with the operations, following the Division Bench judgment, routinely orders were being made. Noticing this aspect of the matter, this Court in Writ Petition No. 9801 of 2020 and batch of cases on 06.07.2020, directed the Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department and the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture to state, on affidavit, why they had not taken appropriate steps wlth clear instructions to the supporting officers putting them on notice with respect to the Divislon Bench judgment and the law declared by this Court to avoid the unnecessary burden being imposed both on the State as well as this Couft. This issue was also brought to the notice of the learned Advocate General. In compliance with the Order of this Court, dated 06.07.2020, the Commissioner of Agriculture had filed the affidavit dated 29.07 .2020 specifically denying the interference on behalf of the State authorities and denying violation of the Orders of this Couft, Adverting to the oral submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in each of the cases, the State authorities
l are insisting a speciflc order, the said issue was informed to the Commissioner, who, in turn, while denying the same, had stated that the memo dated 25.07.2020 was issued to all the District Agricultural OfFicers in the State informing the respective offcers not to insist for specific orders in each and every case. The memo reads as under: No. PP(2)288/2020 Dt.25.07.2020 O/o Commissioner of Agriculture Telangana, Hyderabad MEMO Sub: Bio products Common Couft order WP No. 25293 of 2014 and Writ Appeal Nos. ll22 and 1136 of 2016 vide common judgment, dated 03.11.2016 - Instructions - Reg. Ref: W.P.No. 9801, 9843, 9857 and 9864 of 2020 of Hon'ble Hlgh Court of State of Telangana. &&&&&&& It is to inform that all the fleld functionaries /inspection staff i.e. Insecticide Inspectors to strictly comply with the orders of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court referred in the subject cited and not to insist for an order from the High Court in each and every case. Encl: W.P.No.9801,9843,9857 and 9864 of 2020 of Hon'ble High Court of State of Telangana. Commissioner of Agriculture To All the District Agricultural Officers in the State with instructions to communicate all the Agricultural Officers (Insecticide Inspectors) for strict compliance. In the light of the Memo issued by the 2nd respondent - Commissioner, who is the Competent Authority, this Court warns the respective authorities that ^ if it notices violation of the Orders of this Court / lnsisting on orders of the High Couft, the matter will be viewed seriously and necessary proceedlngs will be initiated against the respective authorities. It is made clear that it shall be the responsibility of the 2"d respondent as well as the 1't respondent to ensure the Memo dated 25.07.2020 is implemented in its letter and spirit. Further, in future, if any party comes forward specifically
naming the authorities committing violation of the orders issued, the Court will pass appropriate orders on case to case basis. Subject to the above, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending. shall stand closed. A copy of this order be made available to the 2nd respondent forthwith. CHALLA KODANDA RAM, ] 05th August 2O2O ksld .,)
.+ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KONDANDA RAM 05th August 2020 ksld
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.