M/S Maharashtra vs The Director Of Agriculture on 26 June, 2014

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Maharashtra vs The Director Of Agriculture on 26 June, 2014

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                            1
                                          W.P.No.21417/14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

       WRIT PETITION NO.21417/2014 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
RESHAM BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR,
78, VEER NARIMAN ROAD,
MUMBAI-400 020,
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SATHYANARAYANA RAO.
                                          ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR. ADV. FOR SRI CHETHANA DEEPAK,
ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
       GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
       SESHADRI ROAD,
       BANGALORE-560 001.

2.     ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
       (ORGANIC FARMING)
       THE COMMISSIONERATE OF AGRICULTURE,
       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
       GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
       SESHADRI ROAD,
       BANGALORE-560 001.
                                       ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, HCGP.)
                              2
                                                W.P.No.21417/14

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS AN
APPROPRIATE     WRIT/ORDER     SETTING    ASIDE   THE
PROCEEDING/ORDER DATED 03.05.2014 AT ANNX-M PASSED
BY THE R-2 IN PURSUANCE OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 22.03.2014 AT ANNX-D ISSUED BY THE R-1.

      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRL.HEARING IN
'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

In a proceeding under the Seeds Act, 1966, instituted by the Seeds Officer in relation to certain seeds produced by the petitioner, the Seeds Inspector having sought to rely upon a report of a Scientist, was objected to by the petitioner and an application was filed to tender the Scientist for cross examination, which when rejected, has resulted in this petition.

2. It may be that the Seeds Inspector is conducting a summary proceeding, nevertheless, if the Scientist's report is sought to be made use of against the petitioner without examining the said Scientist, it is needless to state that it is for the petitioner to advance a plea over its admissibility in evidence. There can be no 3 W.P.No.21417/14 compulsion in law to secure the presence of the Scientist who submitted the report and tendered for cross examination when he is not examined in chief.

3. If the Seeds Inspector or the complainant places reliance upon the said report, that Scientist should be examined and tendered for cross examination.

4. In that view of the matter, nothing further survives for consideration in this petition and is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE AN/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court