M/S.Icon Agri Solutions vs. The State Of Telengana, And Another

Held

The Court held that the issue in the present writ petition was squarely covered by the common order dated 10.07.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.25293 of 2014 and batch, as modified by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016 vide common judgment dated 03.11.2016. The Division Bench had agreed that there cannot be an omnibus categorization of all bio-products as insecticides for the purpose of taking action under the Act. However, the grounds for an Insecticide Inspector to believe that insecticides are being sold in contravention of the Act and Rules would depend on the facts of each case and cannot be circumscribed by court guidelines. The guidelines prescribed in the earlier order were to supplement, not supplant, the law, and would remain in force until appropriate legislation is made. The Division Bench clarified that while there cannot be an omnibus categorization of bio-products as insecticides, the prescribed guidelines would be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the powers conferred on the authorities under the Act and Rules. The Court explicitly stated it was not expressing an opinion on whether any of the bio-products were insecticides, as this required examination by the concerned authorities. The present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these previous judgments.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of Respondent No. 2 (likely an agricultural or enforcement authority) in interfering with the manufacturing, sale, and supply of its bio-products was illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and without jurisdiction. The petitioner listed numerous bio-products, stating they contain Amino Acid and Sea-Weed Extract. The interference was based on Memo No. PP.II(1)2085/2005 dated 21/01/2006 and a consequential letter of the same date. The petitioner sought a direction for Respondent No. 2 not to interfere with these bio-products, even from licensed premises of dealers/stockists under the Insecticides Act, 1968, and the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act, 1985. Both parties agreed that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of Respondent No. 2 in interfering with the manufacturing, sale, and supply of the petitioner's bio-products, which contain Amino Acid and Sea-Weed Extract, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and without jurisdiction, based on Memo No. PP.II(1)2085/2005 and its consequential letter dated 21/01/2006. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent's action of interfering with their bio-products was unlawful and beyond the respondent's authority. They sought a mandamus to prevent such interference. Revenue/State's Contention: The learned Government Pleader for Agriculture, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the issue in the present writ petition was squarely covered by previous common orders and judgments of the High Court, specifically the order dated 10.07.2015 in Writ Petition No.25293 of 2014 and batch, as modified by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016 vide judgment dated 03.11.2016.