Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Aquagri Processing Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:49974]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12110/2025
M/s Aquagri Processing Pvt. Ltd., A Company Registered Under The
Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At 284, Sultan
Sadan, 2, Lane Number 3, West End Marg, Saiyad Ul Ajaib
Extension, Sainik Farm, New Delhi, Delhi, 110030, Through Its
Authorized Representative Mr. Piyush Chauhan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Agriculture, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Fertilizer, Seed, Pesticide Inspector And Deputy Director
(Horticulture), Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13323/2025 M/s Aquagri Processing Pvt. Ltd., A Company Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office At 284, Sultan Sadan, 2, Lane Number 3, West End Marg, Saiyad Ul Ajaib Extension, Sainik Farm, New Delhi, Delhi, 110030, Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Piyush Chauhan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. Joint Director Agriculture (Input) And Notified Authority, Agriculture Directorate, Jaipur, Rajasthan Government.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora, Adv. with
Mr. Aman Garg, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG with
Mr. Hardik Singh, AAAG
Mr. Rahul Gupta, AAAG
Mr. Satyam Bhardwaj, Adv.
(Uploaded on 18/12/2025 at 05:07:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/12/2025 at 09:28:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:49974] (2 of 12) [CW-12110/2025]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Judgment
Date of Arguments Concluded : 30/10/2025
Date of Judgment Reserved : 30/10/2025
Full/Operative Part Uploaded : Full
Date of Judgment Pronounced : 17/12/2025
1. As per brief facts of the case, the petitioner-firm is engaged in the lawful business of manufacturing and selling of bio-stimulants; namely-Sagarika Z++ Seaweed Fortified Granules and Sagarika Liquid, having its manufacturing unit at ManaMaduri, Tamil Nadu and granulation processing units across India including State of Rajasthan. For establishing such processing units, the petitioner- firm executed lease deeds as well as MOUs with 4 entities; namely-
a) M/S Atishay Biotech Industries at village Patan, Tehsil Kishangarh, Ajmer, Rajasthan;
b) Divyaa Agrofert Industries at village Nallu, Tehsil Kishangarh, Rajasthan;
c) Raghav Agro Industries at village Tikawara, Kishangarh, Ajmer, Rajasthan and
d) Aaditya Organic Fertilizers, Gram-Lavera, Tehsil Nasirabad, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
Furthermore, as per the petitioner-firm, bio-stimulants comes under the category of products, which are different from the fertilizers. Vide license agreement dated 15.02.2009, the technology for production of seaweed extracts has been transferred and licensed to the petitioner-firm by Central Salt and Marine (Uploaded on 18/12/2025 at 05:07:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/12/2025 at 09:28:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:49974] (3 of 12) [CW-12110/2025] Chemical Research Institute (CSMCRI), which is a constituent laboratory of the 'Council of Scientific and Industrial Research' (CSIR), Government of India. Petitioner-firm also entered into an agreement on 21.06.2016 with the 'IFFCO e-Bazaar Limited' (hereinafter referred to as 'IEBL'), which is a wholly owned subsidiary and retail unit of 'Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited' (hereinafter referred to as 'IFFCO'), wherein, IEBL agreed for purchase and distribution of the product of petitioner-firm, i.e., 'Sagarika'. The initial agreement was valid till 31.05.2025, but the same was extended upto 31.03.2035, vide subsequent agreement dated 01.04.2025. Before 2021, bio-stimulants were allowed to be sold without any regulation or licence, as they were not covered under the 'Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) Control Order, 1985' (hereinafter referred to as 'FCO, 1985') until the first gazette- notification dated 23.02.2021 namely Fertilizer Control Amendment Order, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'FCO, 2021') was published, whereby, the FCO, 1985 was amended and it was held that the standards and specifications of bio-stimulants would be notified in Schedule VI of FCO, 1985.
1.1. As per the aforesaid gazette order dated 23.02.2021, the petitioner-firm has submitted application Form G-1 for grant of provisional registration (Form G-3) to conduct manufacturing and sale of bio-stimulants across India including State of Rajasthan and has also obtained authorization letter i.e. Form A-2 (Licence) for the sale of bio-stimulants specifically for the State of Rajasthan.
1.2. The respondent-authorities inspected the premises of aforesaid four processing units, and since the petitioner-firm had (Uploaded on 18/12/2025 at 05:07:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/12/2025 at 09:28:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:49974] (4 of 12) [CW-12110/2025] not allegedly disclosed information regarding all the processing units, required under Form G-1 and Form A-2, the respondent- authorities seized the record and documents of the petitioner-firm vide seizure memos dated 29.05.2025, 30.05.2025 and 01.06.2025. Respondent-authorities have also sealed the entire premises along with the seized-stock of all the processing units and cancelled the authorization letter i.e. Form A-2 (Licence) vide impugned cancellation order dated 08.07.2025. Aggrieved by the actions of the respondent-authorities, the petitioner-firm preferred the present petitions.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-firm submits that clause 20-C (4) of the FCO, 1985, amended vide FCO, 2021, is a non-obstante clause for bio-stimulants, which is reproduced below:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this order, any person manufacturing or importing a bio-stimulant as on the date of publication of this order for which no standards have been specified, may, subject to making an application for grant of provisional registration under sub- clause (5) continue to manufacture or import for sale, sell, offer for sale, stock or exhibit such bio-stimulants for a period of four years from the date of publication of this order."
2.1. Learned counsel argues that so far as standards in the aforesaid clause are concerned, the Central Government Authorities are still in process to formulate the same and validate the methods of analysis to facilitate the testing of bio-stimulants, therefore, unless the standards are prescribed in the FCO, 1985, no testing can be done and the same is evident from a response given in RTI by Central Fertilizer Quality Control & Training Institute, Faridabad, (Uploaded on 18/12/2025 at 05:07:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/12/2025 at 09:28:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:49974] (5 of 12) [CW-12110/2025] Haryana which is notified laboratory for the purpose of testing bio simulants. In the reply to the queries of petitioner-firm by RTI, the laboratory stated that validation for testing procedures for bio- stimulants notified on 10.06.2025 is under process and that the appropriate equipment for testing the same, is yet to be procured. Therefore, it was contended that in view of aforesaid Clause 20-C(4) of FCO, 1985, the petitioner-firm is entitled as a 'manufacturer' to continue manufacturing or import for sale, sell, offer for sale, stock or exhibit such bio-stimulants as the petitioner-firm complied with the due procedure provided under Clause 20-C(5) and obtained 'Form G-3' as a grant of provisional registration on 12.07.2022 which was extended upto 16.06.2025, vide the second gazette- notification dated 17.03.2025 namely Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Second Amendment Order, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as 'FCO, 2025').
2.2. Learned counsel further submits that after expiry of the aforesaid extended date of Form G-3 (Provisional Registration), the non-extension of the said provisional registration was challenged by the petitioner-firm along with other bio-stimulants associations before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11081/2025, titled as 'Biological Agri Solutions Association of India & Ors v. Union of India', wherein, vide judgment dated 18.08.2025, the Court ordered that the petitioners; who have submitted an application for inclusion of their products in Schedule VI of the FCO, 1985 and the same is pending for consideration before the Central Government Authority, are legally permitted to continue manufacturing, stocking, selling, and distributing until final decision is taken on such (Uploaded on 18/12/2025 at 05:07:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/12/2025 at 09:28:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:49974] (6 of 12) [CW-12110/2025] application. Learned counsel contends that in the present matter, the application for such inclusion has been filed by the petitioner- firm before the Central Government Authority on 11.09.2025 and the same is still pending for consideration, therefore, the petitioner- firm be allowed to continue the manufacturing and sale of bio- stimulants without any interruption of the State Authority. However, despite complying with the due procedure under non-obstante clause of FCO, 1985 and the extension of the provisional registration upto 16.06.2025, the respondent-authorities inspected and sealed the entire premises of the aforementioned four processing units of petitioner-firm and also seized the stock and record of the petitioner-firm vide seizure memos dated 29.05.2025, 30.05.2025 and 01.06.2025.
2.3. Subsequently, 4 FIRs were also registered against the aforementioned four processing units of the petitioner-firm under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of B.N.S., 2023; Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clause 19 of FCO, 1985. Further, a show-cause notice dated 11.06.2025 was also issued by the respondent-authorities alleging violation of Clauses 8, 19(C)(5) and 35 of the FCO, 1985 by the petitioner-firm and it was directed to submit its reply to the same within a period of seven days, however, it is contended that the grounds in the said notice were vague and lacked substance as to how and in what manner, the petitioner-firm has violated the provisions of FCO, 1985 amid the pendency of notification for the standards and sampling by the Central Government under Schedule VI of FCO, 1985. Due to non- submission of reply by the petitioner-firm to the aforesaid notice, (Uploaded on 18/12/2025 at 05:07:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/12/2025 at 09:28:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:49974] (7 of 12) [CW-12110/2025] the Authorization Letter i.e Form A-2 (licence) granted to the petitioner-firm to conduct sale of bio-stimulants by the State of Rajasthan, was suspended for a period of 14 days vide suspension order dated 24.06.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner-firm filed reply dated 26.06.2025, however, the respondent-authorities did not pay any heed to the same and vide cancellation order dated 08.07.2025, Form A-2 (licence) was cancelled by the respondent- authorities.
2.4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner-firm challenged the FIR No.91/2025 dated 04.06.2025 registered against its processing unit namely-Aaditya Organic Fertilizers, before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SB. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3686/2025, whereby, vide order dated 08.07.2025 the court granted interim protection to the aforementioned processing unit that no coercive action be taken against it and the filing of chargesheet in the matter be also stayed. Thereafter, premises of processing unit of petitioner-firm namely-Aaditya Organic Fertilizers was de-sealed by respondent-authorities.
2.5. Learned counsel further argues that as far as maintainability of writ petition No. 13323/2025 is concerned; wherein, the petitioner-firm challenging the impugned cancellation order dated 08.07.2025 vide which the authorization letter (Form A-2 Licence) of the petitioner has been cancelled, the petition is maintainable even though there is a remedy of appeal under Clause 32A of FCO 1985 against such cancellation order.
2.6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention of this Court towards the judgment (Uploaded on 18/12/2025 at 05:07:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/12/2025 at 09:28:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:49974] (8 of 12) [CW-12110/2025] passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 wherein, it has been reiterated that if the action of government authorities is without jurisdiction and adversely affects the bread and butter of the petitioner then the High Courts must entertain the writ petition. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the presence of alternative remedy of appeal is not a bar in the present case to decide the writ petition.
2.7. Learned counsel argues that the respondent-authorities have arbitrarily seized the stock of bio-stimulants and the same is in violation of Clause 28(1)(d) of the FCO, 1985 as the respondent- authorities issued a pre-typed seizure notice without assigning any coherent reasons or supporting evidence to base their allegation of petitioner-firm violating provisions of FCO, 1985. Learned counsel further argues that there is no provision of any departmental appeal against such arbitrary action of seizure and sealing since the provision of sealing the entire premises is nowhere provided either under FCO 1985 or under CrPC.
2.8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner-firm places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Nevada Properties Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 20 SCC 119.
2.9. Learned counsel prays that the present petitions be allowed and the impugned action of sealing the premises as well as seizing the stock and records of the petitioner-firm vide seizure memos dated 29.05.2025, 30.05.2025 and 01.06.2025, and the (Uploaded on 18/12/2025 at 05:07:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/12/2025 at 09:28:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:49974] (9 of 12) [CW-12110/2025] impugned cancellation order dated 08.07.2025, be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further prays that the respondent- authorities be directed to deseal the premises of the processing units of the petitioner-firm and the seized stock and records of the petitioner-firm be ordered to be released forthwith.
3. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents submits that for the purpose of grant of Form G-3, the petitioner-firm mentioned the manufacturing unit situated in Tamil Nadu and only one out of four processing units in Rajasthan i.e Divyaa Agrofert situated at Nallu, Kishangarh was mentioned in application Form G-1, upon which only one provisional registration (Form G-3) was granted. It was contended that merely, one Form G-3 is not valid for the remaining 3 processing units and the petitioner-firm must have applied for each processing unit separately. As the required Form A-2 was not obtained from the State Government under the Clause 20-C(5) of FCO 1985, therefore, manufacturing, stocking, selling, and distributing of bio-stimulants cannot take place at the aforementioned processing units, thereby, only the godown areas; where the bio-stimulants were stored, were sealed and not the entire premises of the processing units. Learned Additional Advocate General prays that the present petitions being devoid of any merit, be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. In the present case in hand, it is an undisputed fact that the standards and specifications of bio-stimulants are yet to be notified by the Central Authority under the Schedule VI of FCO, 1985 and (Uploaded on 18/12/2025 at 05:07:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/12/2025 at 09:28:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:49974] (10 of 12) [CW-12110/2025] presently, no testing and sampling of the bio-stimulants can be conducted. Moreover, Delhi High Court in Biological Agri Solutions (supra), permitted the bio-stimulants associations and the petitioner-firm to continue manufacturing, stocking, selling, and distributing of bio-stimulants, until final decision by the Central Authority is taken on pending applications for inclusion of the bio- stimulants in Schedule VI of the FCO, 1985.
6. As far as the procedural mandate under FCO, 1985 is concerned, petitioner-firm submitted Form G-1 which is an application form, wherein, the manufacturing as well as processing unit along with its address were required to be named for grant of provisional registration i.e. Form G-3. However, in Form G-1 (application form), the petitioner-firm explicitly named its manufacturing unit; situated at Mana Madurai, Tamil Nadu and only one processing unit (out of the abovementioned 4 processing units), namely- Divyaa Agrofert Industry situated at village-Nallu, Kishangarh, was mentioned, leaving out the other 3 processing units situated at villages - Patan, Tikawara and Lavera. Similarly, in the Form A-2, the authorization letter (licence), issued on 16.08.2021 by the Government of Rajasthan in favour of petitioner- firm; which is valid upto 15.08.2026, for conducting sale of bio- stimulants across the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner-firm provided only the address of processing unit situated at village Patan, Kishangarh, withholding the name of the firm M/s Atishay biotech and projecting its own name instead.
7. In the case in hand, the petitioner-firm arrived at MOUs with all the 4 processing units including the one named in application (Uploaded on 18/12/2025 at 05:07:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/12/2025 at 09:28:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:49974] (11 of 12) [CW-12110/2025] Form G-1 i.e. Divyaa Agrofert Industry, on 01.04.2025. Despite of this fact, the petitioner-firm has neither disclosed true and transparent information of all the processing units in an explicit manner as a pre-requisite under Form G-1 and Form A-2, nor have they provided any information with regard to aforesaid MOUs in any manner, to the respondent-state authorities.
8. Based on the submission made by Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-authorities, the conduct of petitioner-firm reveals a pattern of regulatory evasion as it is a mandatory requirement to provide explicit information of each processing unit under Form G-1 for grant of provisional registration i.e. Form G-3, however, the same was provided only for 'Divyaa Agrofert Industry'. Similarly, Form A-2 was never issued for the processing unit explicitly in the name of 'Atishay Biotech Industries' and other processing units namely- 'Raghav Agro Industries', 'Aaditya Organic Fertilizers' and 'Divyaa Agrofert Industry'.
9. In the firm opinion of this Court, since the petitioner-firm has failed to make complete true and transparent disclosure regarding all its processing units in the statutory Form G-1 and Form A-2, and subsequently, operated the units without requisite authorization, is not entitled to any relief. Thereby, the respondent-state authorities have reasonable grounds to cancel the Form A-2 (licence) vide cancellation order dated 08.07.2025 and to seize the stocks as well as records of processing units under Clauses 28(1)(d) and 28(1)(e) of FCO, 1985, respectively, and to seal the processing units as a preventive measure.
(Uploaded on 18/12/2025 at 05:07:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/12/2025 at 09:28:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:49974] (12 of 12) [CW-12110/2025]
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in these writ petitions. Hence, both these writ petitions being devoid of merits, are hereby, dismissed.
11. Stay application and any other pending applications also stand disposed of.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J AARZOO ARORA/--
(Uploaded on 18/12/2025 at 05:07:25 PM) (Downloaded on 18/12/2025 at 09:28:53 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)