Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar Yadav vs Sri Soraj Singh,Director,Agriculture ... on 28 September, 2020
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?In Chamber Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 1439 of 2020 Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- Sri Soraj Singh,Director,Agriculture Krishi Bhawan,Lko.& Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Janak Yadav,Ambrish Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Janak Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant through video conferencing in view of COVID-19 pandemic.
2. By means of instant contempt application the applicant has alleged non compliance of Court's order dated 18.09.2019, passed in Writ Petition No. 25650 (M/S) of 2019 - Sanjay Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others, whereby the Court passed following order :-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State Counsel.
The petitioner holds Authorization Letter for selling fertilizer in terms of the provisions contained in the Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic Or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Control Order,1985). A sample of the fertiliser being sold by the petitioner was tested on 13.11.2018 at Fertilizer and Pesticide Quality Control Laboratory, Meerut, wherein the sample was not found as per the specification, that is to say, it was found substandard. On the basis of such testing conducted by the Fertilizer and Pesticide Quality Control Laboratory, Meerut a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the District Agriculture Officer, Gonda on 30.11.2018 requiring the petitioner therein to submit his explanation.
The petitioner appears to have filed an appeal under clause 32-A (2) of the Control Order, 1985 against the test report dated 13.11.2018. The said appeal was registered as appeal no.202/201-19. In the said appeal. an order was passed on 18.01.2019 for sending the sample for second testing. The order dated 18.01.2019 further directs for preserving the third sample as well. The second testing of the sample of the fertilizer was again not found satisfactory which appears to have led the appellate authority to pass the order on 11.07.2019 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under clause 32-A(2) of the Control Order, 1985 against the first test report has been rejected and it has been opined by the appellate authority that the proceedings initiated vide show cause notice dated 30.11.2018 appeared to be justified.
After perusal of the appeal vide order dated 11.07.2019 the District Agriculture Officer, Gonda has passed an order on 30.07.2019 cancelling the Authorization Letter which was otherwise valid till 29.08.2020. The order of cancellation of the authorization letter dated 30.07.2019 appears to be appealable under clause 32-A(2) of the Control Order, 1985, however, what is noticeable in this case is that the proviso appended to sub clause 3 of Clause 32-A of the Control Order, 1985 provides that where the sample is declared as non-standard both in the first analysis report and referee analysis (second analysis) and there is wide variation in these two analysis reports, the aggrieved person may appeal to the appellate authority for a third analysis.
A perusal of the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority reveals that the sample for third analysis as contemplated in the proviso appended to sub clause 3 of Clause 32-A of the Control Order, 1985 was preserved. However, third analysis has not been done.
In the aforesaid circumstances, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to sent the sample of the fertilizer for third analysis to appropriate laboratory for which the requisite charges shall be deposited by the petitioner. It is further directed that the sample for third analysis shall be sent to the appropriate laboratory by the appellate authority within two weeks from today. The petitioner shall make deposit of the requisite amount within a week from today. The report of the third analysis shall be furnished to the petitioner once it is received by the appellate authority and thereafter appropriate order shall be passed based on the result of the third analysis as the same would supersede the reports of the first and second analysis. The appellate authority shall make appropriate request to the laboratory for conducting the third analysis of the sample of the fertilizer, as expeditiously as possible.
There will be no order as to costs."
3. From the perusal of aforesaid order it is clear that the applicant was directed to make deposit of requisite amount within one week of the order and on deposit of the said amount, the report was to be furnished to the petitioner after it was received by the Appellate Authority and the authorities were expected to proceed accordingly in the matter.
4. Firstly, the applicant has been unable to demonstrate that he had deposited the requisite amount within one week. He has filed supplementary affidavit, stating that on 25th September, 2019, requisite deposit has been made in the office of opposite party no. 3, but no receipt of the same has been annexed with the application nor any document has been annexed which may indicate the said transaction.
5. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that he had fulfilled the condition imposed by this Court, pursuant to which the opposite party was to send the sample for analysis.
6. In the light of above, no contempt is made out at this stage.
7. The contempt petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.9.2020 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.)