AP HIGH COURT
| Main Number | WP 16024/2020 | SR Number | WPSR 19779/2020 |
| Petitioner | M/s. Plant Cure, | Respondent | The State of Andhra Pradesh, |
| Petitioner Advocate | B V APARNA LAKSHMI | Respondent Advocate | GP FOR AGRICULTURE |
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16024 of 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking to declare the action of the 2nd
respondent in interfering with the sale and supply of bio-products
of the petitioner firm as illegal.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader for Agriculture.
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for
the petitioner states that the issue involved in this writ petition is
squarely covered by the common order dated 10.07.2015 passed
by the unified High Court in Writ Petition No.25293 of 2014 and
batch as confirmed with certain modifications by a Division Bench
of the unified High Court in W.A.Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016 by
common judgment, dated 03.11.2016.
Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture does not
dispute the said fact.
The observations and directions of the learned Single Judge
in paragraphs 17 to 19 in Writ Petition No.25293 of 2014 and
batch 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
2
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.
18. 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
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 (1)(g) of the Constitution of
India, but the said right is subject to a restriction enunciated
in the said Article.
19. 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, 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
concerned 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.
3
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 verify 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 of the
explanation from the person, the authority can pass
appropriate orders under the provisions of the said
enactments.
vi)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 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 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.
ix)In case of violation of the above directions, it is open to
the petitioners to bring it to the notice of the higher
authorities of the action of the officers violating the
directions, and the higher authority to the authority
interfering with the activity of the petitioners shall dispose
of the representations with utmost expediency and not later
than ten days from the receipt thereof”
4
In W.A.Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016, 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 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 legislationeither 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
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, if any, shall also stand
disposed of. No costs.”
Hence, in view of the above observations, subject to the
petitioner complying with the guidelines issued by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.25293 of 2014 and batch, as confirmed
with certain modifications by a Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1122
and 1136 of 2016, the respondents shall not interfere with the sale
or distribution of the bio-products of the petitioner. However, this
order does not preclude the respondents to inspect the petitionerfirm, in accordance with the provisions of the Insecticides Act and
5
the Fertilizer (Control) Order, if so required, by following due
procedure and taking appropriate steps as warranted by law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above
directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
__________________
M.GANGA RAO, J
09.09.2020
Vjl
6
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16024 of 2020
09.09.2020
Vjl
