Karnataka High Court
Yadgir Agro Dealers Association, vs The Union Of India on 31 May, 2011
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
Daied this the 31° Day of May, 2011
Before.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HUi UVADI G RAMESH |
Writ Petition 41039 fe / 2008 Gib)
Between:
Yadgir Agro Dealers Association
Main Road, Yadgir, Gulbarga
By its President -- Sangareddy, 29 yrs ee ; »
S/o Parvath Reddy, Qe: Busine: BB ee Petitioner
(By Sri Veeresh B Pat > adv) 7 .
And:
i Union of india
Ministry oP Agricu uure.
Dept. of Agriculture & Co-operation
Kristi Bhavan, New Delhi |
_ Director of Agriculture
. Govefument of Karnataka
Seshadri Road. -K R Circle
Bangalore |. Respondents
bas,
{By Sri R S Siddapurkar, Adv. for R]-2)
v"
ba
The Writ Petition is filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution
praying fo quash the proposed amended Rule 10 as per notification dated
20.5.1999 ~ annexure B, ete. NS
The Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the:
court made the following:- ", , ,
ORDER
Petitioner states. it is a Society dealing with pesticides and ie agerieved by the order dated 20.5.1999 wherein amendment vas brought m to Rule 10 under $136 of the insecticides Act, jeaa, iit.consultation with the fe Central Insecticide Board. Therefore, this petition:
According to (he petitioner, thé Rules for distribution and sale and use of several pesticicé:: is regulated-and nominal fee for issuing license to dealers and stockists was.collected. by receiving license fee for dealing, selling and using single insecticide was fixed at Rs.20/- and Rs.300/- for for all insecticides/pesticides. By the amendment, the same has been enhanced from Ra.20/- to RS GO/> and from Rs.300/- to Rs.7,500/- respectively. The amended Rule cdrse.nto effect from 2006-07. Agerieved by the same, : petitioner is befere this Court on the ground that these insecticides and pesticiaes fall under Entry 14 of List [If to the VIE Schedule and that fee ~~. ecllected requires to be applied for providing basic amenities to the Society. By abnormally increasing the license fee, agricultarists would be put to hardship. Stating that it is without application of mind, learned counsel bas sought for quashing the amended provision of the Rule. Heard the counsel representing the parties.
it is for the petitioner to submit a representation to the 2°" respondent with all their grievances who shall formulate the feasibility of continuance or otherwise of the fee structure or rejection or amendment to the old Rule and in tam, based om the representation, it is for the i" respondent to take decision in accordance "with -law inthe. interest of petitioner or agricultarists. --
. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
dn