M/S. Sri Rama Organics vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

M/s. Sri Rama Organics, a proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition challenging the actions of the 2nd Respondent (Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, State of Telangana). The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of bio-products/bio-stimulants. The 2nd Respondent issued Memo No. PP.II(1)2085/2005 dated 21.01.2006 and Letter No. PP.II(1)2085/2005 dated 21.01.2006, which interfered with the petitioner's business. The petitioner obtained a GST Registration Certificate on 17.03.2023. The impugned memos stated that the bio-products/bio-stimulants were not covered by the Insecticides Act, 1968, or the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act, 1985, and therefore, their sale from licensed premises would not be permitted. The petitioner sought a declaration that this action was illegal and arbitrary and requested a direction to the 2nd Respondent not to interfere with their business.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage, following the common order passed in W.P. No. 48 of 2021 and batch, dated 07.09.2021. The Court noted that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by this previous order. The previous order had granted liberty to the petitioners therein to make applications in compliance with Clause 5 of the Government of India's Order S.O. 882(E) dated 23.02.2021, within two weeks. It further directed that if applications were made within the stipulated time, the competent authority should process them and, if satisfied, issue a provisional Certificate of Registration in Form G-3 within four weeks. The Court in the previous order clarified that the competent authority was entitled to collect samples and test the compatibility of products meeting the parameters to be marketed as bio-nutrients before granting registration. Until the exercise was completed, subject to the petitioners submitting applications within time and in compliance with the requirements of Clause 5 of the Government of India's order, the petitioners were entitled to manufacture and sell their products. The competent authority was also permitted to verify whether the products manufactured and distributed complied with statutory requirements and take action as warranted by law. The present writ petition was disposed of in terms of this established precedent.

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 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 prescribed standards. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the subject matter of the writ petition was squarely covered by a common order passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 25293 of 2014 & batch, dated 10.07.2015, as modified by a Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 1122 and 1136 of 2016 dated 03.11.2016. Furthermore, the petitioner relied on another common order by the High Court in W.P. No. 48 of 2021 and batch dated 07.09.2021, which provided specific directions regarding applications for registration of bio-nutrients. Respondents' Contention: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture, appearing for the respondents, confirmed the petitioner's submission regarding the applicability of the previous High Court orders.