M/S Maharasthra Hybrid Seeds Co Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2014

[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Maharasthra Hybrid Seeds Co Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2014

Bench: C.R. Kumaraswamy

                         1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014

                     BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. KUMARASWAMY

    WRIT PETITION NO.17012 OF 2014 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. M/S MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO.LTD.,
   HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
   RESHAM BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR
   78, VEER NARIMAN ROAD
   MUMBAI-400020
   REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
   SIGNATORY
   SATHYANARANA RAO

2. MR.RAJENDRA BARWALE
   AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
   SON OF SHRI.B.R.BARWALE
   SHAREHOLDER AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
   MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO.LTD.,
   HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
   RESHAM BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR
   78 VEER NARIMAN ROAD
   MUMBAI 400020                 ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.CHETHANA K.N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
   REPRESENTED BY THE
   PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
                             2

  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
  GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
  SESHADRI ROAD
  BANGALORE

2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
   GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
   SESHADRI ROAD
   BANGALORE                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PROFESSOR RAVI VARMA KUMAR,ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR SRI.H.V.MANJUNATH, AGA))

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTILCES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
22.03.2014 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANN-AH.

    THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FORPRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                      ORDER

This writ petition is filed praying to set-aside the order dated 22.03.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-'AH'.

2. The grounds urged in the writ petition is as under:-

The impugned order is illegal and the same is without any jurisdiction. No show-cause notice was 3 issued/received by the petitioner- Company in respect of ban/blacklisting of the petitioner - Company. The impugned order has been passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 14(e) of the Seeds Act, 1966. The Seeds Act, 1966 does not apply in the instant case, as MRC - 7351 and Nikki Plus are not notified kind or variety of seeds. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh had passed an order dated 06.06.2007 in W.P.No. 11433/2007 to the effect that the provisions of the Seeds Act would apply only to seeds, which are notified under Section 5 of the Seeds Act. The Director of Agriculture (the Seed Inspector) does not have the power to ban/blacklist a Company under the provisions of the Seeds Act. The farmers want the seeds of the petitioner

- Company, as it gives good yield. The petitioner - Company has duly obtained the required licence under the Seeds Control Order, 1983.

3. I have heard the learned Advocate General Prof. Ravivarma Kumar appearing for the respondents and 4 the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Udaya Holla appearing for the petitioners.

4. Learned Advocate General has fairly submitted that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner - Company before passing the order of ban or blacklisting the petitioner - Company. The final order passed vide No.SFS-8/Bt. Cotton/Comp/2013-14, dated 22.03.2014 wherein it is mentioned that as per the powers vested under Section 14(1)(e) of Seeds Act, 1966, I Dr.B.K.Dharmarajan, Director of Agriculture and Seed Inspector having the jurisdiction of State hereby order that the sales of Bt cotton hybrids by M/s.Maharastra Hybrid Seed Company is banned until further order in Karnataka state. Further, M/s. Mahyco company has been black listed, preventing them in participating in any tender process undertaken by the Department of Agriculture until further orders.

5. Learned Advocate General submitted that this order may be treated as proposal. He further submits 5 that the Annexure-'AH' may be treated as show-cause notice.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Udaya Holla submits that he will file detailed objection and he may be heard while passing the order.

7. Therefore, in view of the submission made by the learned Advocate General and the learned Senior Counsel, the respondents are directed to receive the objections, which will be filed by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 within five days and an opportunity shall be given to the petitioners to put-forth their contention and thereafter, pass a fresh order. The learned Advocate General submitted that the impugned order at Annexure-'AH' may be treated as a proposal. This submission is accepted.

8. In the light of the observation made hereinabove, this writ petition is disposed of. All the contentions are kept open for the parties to urge. 6

Since the main matter has been disposed of, I.A.1/2014 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE LB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court