Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Smart Agri Inputs, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 16 September, 2020
Author: D.Ramesh
Bench: D.Ramesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.16473 of 2020
ORDER:
The petitioner filed the present writ petition under article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in interfering with sale and distribution of bio- products of petitioner-Firm i.e. Jawan Gold, Yasmin Plus, Royal Flower, Proton Plus, Target, Elix Gold, Swipe, Goal, Hot Sun, Avenger, Red Bus, Nutri Gold, Smart Gold, Seealo, Alfaa, Unicorn and Green Flower, by issuing Memo No.PP.II(1)2085/2005, dated 21.01.2006 and Letter No.PP.II(1)2085/2005, dated 21.01.2006 as being illegal, arbitrary.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for agriculture, appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Firm is engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and supply of said bio- products in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and the products enrich the soil and ensure the protection of the plants/crops form viral, bacterial, fungus and other infections besides also useful for getting more produce of the crop. Even though it is not necessary to obtain any permission for marketing the above bio-products, the 2nd respondent, who is regulatory authority for the supervision and control of insecticides and pesticides, insisted for obtaining marketing permission for sale and distribution of bio-products of the petitioner company vide proceedings dated 21.01.2006, stating inter alia that since the bio-products are not covered by the Insecticides Act, 1968 or the Fertilizer Control (Order) Act, 1985 and the stocking, storing or the sale of the said products in the licensed premises will not be permitted.
2
4. Aggrieved by the said memo, dated 21.01.2006 some of the Manufacturers and Distributors have filed W.P.Nos.25293 of 2014 and batch and the said batch of writ petitions were allowed by this Court, on 10.07.2015, directing the respondent authorities therein not to interfere with the store, sale and distribution of bio-products of the petitioners therein. Despite the same, the officials of the 2nd respondent are insisting the petitioner not to sell, exhibit and market the bio-products. Hence, the present writ petition.
5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that against the order, dated 10.07.2015 in W.P.Nos.25293 of 2014 & Batch, W.A.Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016 have been filed and the Division Bench of this Court modified the said order passed by the learned single Judge.
6. The Division Bench of this Court, in the said Writ Appeals, observed that some of the conditions prescribed therein appear to run contrary to the provisions of the Act and categorically held that clause 6 of the guidelines, which requires a report from the concerned laboratory, to be obtained not later than a week from the date of collection of the sample is contrary to time limit of one month specified in Section 24 of the Act. The Division Bench also observed that the condition No.7 in the said judgment of the learned single Judge, which requires credible information to form basis of collection of sample, may well be construed as restricting the power conferred under Section 21 (1) (d) of the Act, wherein the Insecticide Inspector is given the power to withhold the stock if he has reason to believe that insecticides are being distributed, sold or used in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under. The Division Bench also clarified that the guidelines prescribed therein will only supplement and not supplant the law and 3 that the said guidelines prescribed by the learned single Judge are in addition to, and not in derogation of the powers conferred on the concerned authorities under the Act and the Rules.
7. In view of the same, before taking any action on suspicion, it is necessary for the authorities to take a sample of the product in which the petitioners are dealing. On the basis of such sample only, the respondent authorities have to ascertain as to whether the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Fertilizer Control (Order) Act, 1985 can be applied and without following due process of law the respondents cannot interfere with the activities of the petitioners. In view of the clarification given by the Division Bench of this Court, the report of the Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under sub-section (6) of Section 22, has to be obtained within a period of 30 days instead of one week from the date of collection as specified in direction No.6 of the judgment of the learned single Judge. Similarly, the Insecticide Inspector instead of acting on the credible information as mentioned at Direction No.7 of the judgment of the learned single Judge, the Insecticide Inspector has to act only "if he has reason to believe". Section 21 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 deals with the powers of Insecticide Inspectors and according to sub-section (1)
(d) of Section 21, the Insecticide Inspector shall have the power to stop the distribution, sale or use of an insecticide which he has reason to believe is being distributed, sold or used in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules made there under, for a specified period not exceeding 30 days or unless the alleged contravention is such that the defect may be removed by the possessor of the insecticide, seize the stock of such insecticide. This is in addition to the other powers of the Insecticide Inspector which are enumerated in the Act. 4
8. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of, in terms of the judgment, dated 03.11.2016 in W.A.Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016 and the respondent authorities are at liberty to take action in accordance with the clarifications given by the Division Bench of this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Dt: 16.09.2020 Pnr 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.16473 of 2020 Dated 16.09.2020 Pnr