Gauhati High Court
Khan Brothers vs The State Of Assam And 9 Ors Rep. By The ... on 12 February, 2021
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Chief Justice, Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
1
GAHC010108132020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1323/2020
KHAN BROTHERS
A PROP FIRM REP. BY ITS PROP ATIQUEL KHAN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
T R PHOOKAN ROAD, MACHKHOWA, GUWAHATI- 09, DIST- KAMRUP (M)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND
SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, AGRICULTURE DEPTT, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI- 781006
2:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
GOVT OF ASSAM
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI- 781022
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM SEEDS CORPORATION LIMITED
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI- 781022
4:GARV ENTERPRISE
WARD NO. 3,SHANTINAGAR
KOKRAJHAR- 783380
5:BAYER CROP SCIENCE LIMITED
G S ROAD, CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI- 781005
6:BIO CARE ASSOCIATES
H NO. 12
HM DAS ROAD
REHABARI
GUWAHATI- 781008
7:TECH BUSINESS INDIA PVT LIMITED
VIP ROAD
2
NEAR RAHMAN HOSPITAL
GUWAHATI- 781022
8:R AND D ASSOCIATES
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI- 781005
9:SRI KRISHNA ENTERPRISE
G S ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781005
10:THE NODAL OFFICER FOR HYBRID PADDY RKVY
BGREI
NFSM AND OTHER VARIETIES
ASSAM SEEDS CORPORATION
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI- 2
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY Advocate for the
Respondent : SC, AGRI. DEPARTMENT
Linked Case : WA/68/2020
KHAN BROTHERS
A PROP FIRM REP. BY ITS PROP ATIQUEL KHAN
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT T R PHOOKAN ROAD
MACHKHOWA
GUWAHATI- 09
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
AGRICULTURE DEPTT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
2:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
GOVT OF ASSAM
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI- 781022
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM SEEDS CORPORATION LIMITED
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI- 781022
4:GARV ENTERPRISE
WARD NO. 3
3
SHANTINAGAR
KOKRAJHAR- 783380
5:BAYER CROP SCIENCE LIMITED
G S ROAD
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI- 781005
6:BIO CARE ASSOCIATES
H NO. 12
HM DAS ROAD
REHABARI
GUWAHATI- 781008
7:TECH BUSINESS INDIA PVT LIMITED
VIP ROAD
NEAR RAHMAN HOSPITAL
GUWAHATI- 781022
8:R AND D ASSOCIATES
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI- 781005
9:SRI KRISHNA ENTERPRISE
G S ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781005
10:THE NODAL OFFICER FOR HYBRID PADDY RKVY
BGREI
NFSM AND OTHER VARIETIES
ASSAM SEEDS CORPORATION
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI- 22
------------
Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
AGRI. DEPARTMENT appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS
Linked Case : WA/67/2020
M/S FARMERS WORLD
A PROP FIRM
REP. BY ITS PROP AMINUR ISLAM KHAN
HAVING ITS OFICE AT T R PHOOKAN ROAD
MACHKHOWA
GUWAHATI- 09
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
AGRICULTURE DEPTT
DISPUR
4
GUWAHATI- 781006
2:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
GOVT OF ASSAM
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI- 781022
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM SEEDS CORPORATION LIMITED
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI- 781022
4:GARV ENTERPRISE
WARD NO. 3
SHANTINAGAR
KOKRAJHAR- 783380
5:BAYER CROP SCIENCE LIMITED
G S ROAD
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI- 781005
6:BIO CARE ASSOCIATES
H NO. 12, HM DAS ROAD
REHABARI
GUWAHATI- 781008
7:TECH BUSINESS INDIA PVT LIMITED
VIP ROAD, NEAR RAHMAN HOSPITAL
GUWAHATI- 781022
8:R AND D ASSOCIATES
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI- 781005
9:SRI KRISHNA ENTERPRISE
G S ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781005
10:THE NODAL OFFICER FOR HYBRID PADDY RKVY
BGREI NFSM AND OTHER VARIETIES
ASSAM SEEDS CORPORATION
KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI- 22
------------
Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
5
AGRI. DEPARTMENT appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
Date : 12-02-2021 (Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ) Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Government of Assam, appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2. These writ appeals have been filed by the appellants against the order dated 16.05.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 5681/2019 and WP(C) 5719/2019, by which the writ petitions filed by the present appellants had been dismissed. The question for determination before the learned Single Judge was as to whether the particular varieties of hybrid rice seeds (in the present case BIO-799 and INDAM 200-217) can be procured for the State of Assam, or not.
3. Whether a particular variety of seeds of a crop, including hybrid seeds, are suitable for a particular State, or a region, or the country as a whole, has to be determined by the Central Government under the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "Seeds Act"). Under the provisions of Section 3 of the Seeds Act, a committee has been constituted by the Central Government which is known as the Central Seed Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee"). It is this committee which has a body of experts, which does the research and, then, makes its recommendations to the Central Government as to which seeds are suitable to be grown in a particular region or in a particular State. Under the provisions of the Act, the Central Government, after consultation with the 6 Committee, notifies under the provisions of section 5 of the Act1 as to which variety of seeds is suitable for a particular region or a State. Under the provisions of section 5 of the Act, the Central Government has been issuing various notifications. Under the notification dated 24.01.2018, which was placed by the learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners, only three hybrid verities of rice seeds were notified for the States of Odisha, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh. The names of these three hybrid varieties of rice seeds are as follows: BIO-799, IET-22919 and BIO-453. The notification was not for Assam.
4. The case of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge as well as before this court is that procurement of some varieties of hybrid rice seeds was being made by the authorities in the State of Assam although they were not notified by the Central Government as per the provisions of section 5 of the Act and there was an absolute pick and choose in the matter. However, learned counsel for the appellants could not place any notification of the Central Government issued under section 5 of the Act, which notifies that the seeds of the appellants, i.e., BIO-799 and INDAM 200-217, have been notified for the State of Assam.
5. In fact, in the counter-affidavit filed by the State respondents in the writ petitions the State Government had taken a categorical stand that only the seeds which had been notified under Section 5 of the Act were being procured by the State Government. The averments made in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit reads as under:
"6. That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph no 9, 10, 11, 12, 14,15 and 16of the writ petition; the deponent begs to state that the Director of Agriculture, Assam, had placed indents to the Managing Director, Assam Seed Corporation LTD, under various schemes, based on schematic norms such as (i) Seeds of less than 10 years old variety and (ii) the varieties 1
5. Power to notify kinds or varieties of seeds.--If the Central Government, after consultation with the committee, is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient to regulate the quality of seed of any kind or variety to be sold for purposes of agriculture, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare such kind or variety to be a notified kind or variety for the purposes of the Act and different kinds or varieties may be notified for different States or for different areas thereof.
7which are notified variety to be sold in Assam and/or whole of India for Agricultural purposes by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. The Directorate has placed indents in question for supply of those varieties of paddy seeds which fulfils the above mentioned two basic criteria. Though there are variations in prices of proprietary hybrid Paddy varieties, but such variations are not of much significant. In the bid process, L-1 has been selected against respective proprietary hybrid paddy varieties individually and there is no question of L-2, L-3 etc. The indents dated 20.07.2019,which have been put to challenge in the writ petition, were issued for supply of hybrid paddy seed varieties namely DRRH-3, ARIZE-6444 Gold, US-312, PAC-835, NPH-924-1, DRH-775 and NPH-8899. All these varieties are notified varieties for sale for agricultural purposes as mentioned in the Column-4 of the notifications annexed herewith, notified by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Govt. of India. The variety BIO 799 has not been notified for sale for agricultural purposes in the State of Assam as mentioned in the recent Notification dated 24.01.2018. However, the said variety is notified for whole India for purposes other than sale for agricultural purposes like quality control, breeder seed, foundation seed, storage etc. Therefore, this Directorate deemed it appropriate to procure the Government of India notified varieties of hybrid paddy seeds and petitioner's variety could not be procured by the department for demonstration purposes in Assam. Hence, consideration of less price does not arise. The deponent further does not admit anything which is contrary to and/or inconsistent with the records of the case."
6. On the last date, when we were hearing the matter, the said averments were put to question by the learned senior counsel for the appellants on the ground that the said averments are not backed by any document. Today Mr. Saikia has made a statement that an affidavit has been filed by the State respondents bringing on record certain Government notifications. A copy of the said affidavit has been produced before us. Although the original copy is not available on record, we make the copy of the affidavit so produced by Mr. Saikia a part of the records and mark the same 8 as "Annexure-A series". Here certain notifications have been filed where at least some of the rice seeds, which are of hybrid varieties, were notified under section 5 of the Act a reference of which was made in the earlier affidavit referred above. However, the remaining rice seeds may not be, technically speaking, hybrid rice seeds but, at least, there is a justification in the procurement of the some of the hybrid seeds in view of the notifications issued under section 5 of the Act.
7. There was a pointed contention of Mr.Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellants that procurement was to be made only for hybrid seeds and not for any other seeds, whereas non-hybrid seeds were also being procured. To this contention, the reply of Mr. Saikia, learned senior counsel for the State respondents is that what had been procured were only hybrid seeds. However, we are not going into this controversy as to whether a particular variety of seeds is hybrid or not. Hybrid or no-hybrid, whichever variety of seeds is procured, the same is to be procured only in accordance of the notification issued under section 5 of the Act, i.e. only after it is notified. Learned counsel for the writ appellants could not produce any notification in their favour to show that the Central Government, on recommendation of the Committee, has notified rice seeds of BIO-799 and INDAM 200-217 varieties for Assam. This being the admitted position, we cannot interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
8. Another contention advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellant was that there is a recommendation of a sub-committee, constituted under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Act2, recommending procurement of, amongst others, BIO-799 and INDAM 200-217 varieties of rice seeds. The said recommendation of the sub-committee, which is annexed as "Annexure-K", is a recommendation dated 23.08.2018, which recommends that the rice varieties,i.e.,BIO-799 and INDAM 200-217, with which presently 2
3. Central Seed Committee.-
(5) The Committee may appoint one or more sub-committees, consisting wholly of members of the Committee or wholly of other persons or partly of members of the Committee and partly of other persons, as it thinks fit, for the purpose of discharging such of its functions as may be delegated to such sub- committee or sub-committees by the Committee.
9we are concerned, can be procured for the State of Assam. All the same, we have also been apprised that the same sub-committee, in its meeting dated 23.08.2018, had subsequently revised its recommendation, whereby it has been clarified that procurement of seeds of hybrid varieties of different crops can also be made provided they are notified for the State of Assam/North- East Region/whole of India. A copy of the Revised Minutes of the State Seed Sub-Committee Meeting, held on 23.08.2018, has been produced before us, the relevant portion of which reads as under:
"The house also resolved that the HYV varieties of different crops demonstrated under departmental programmes during 2017-208 may be procured for 2018-2019 provided they are notified for the State of Assam/North East Region/whole of India and the year of notification is within 15 (fifteen) years in case of oil seeds (up to 2018-19)and 10 (ten) years for other crops among the following:
*** *** ***"
Therefore, the recommendation of the sub-committee made in its meeting dated 23.08.2018 cannot be in favour of the procurement of seeds of writ appellants, since they were never notified. We find no occasion to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, make it absolutely clear that procurement of seeds of any kind or variety in the State shall only be made if they are recommended by the Central Government through its notification under section 5 of the Act.
9. The writ appeals are disposed of in terms of the above observations.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant