Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Meda Hari Krishna, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its ... on 18 June, 2024
1
*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.7548 of 2017
Between:
# Meda Hari Krishna, S/o Venkata Subba Rao, Hindu
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravai,
Guntur District and 2 others.
.... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON .18.06.2024
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
- Yes -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to
Law Reporters/Journals - Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair
copy of the Judgment? - Yes -
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+WRIT PETITION No.7548 of 2017
% 18.06.2024
Between:
# Meda Hari Krishna, S/o Venkata Subba Rao, Hindu
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravai,
Guntur District and 2 others.
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G.L. Nageswara Rao
Counsel for Respondents: G.P for Home
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
3
APHC010157852017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 7548/2017
Between:
Meda Hari Krishna, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G L NAGESWAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents especially the 3rd respondent in registering the case in Crime No.7 of 2017 on the file of the SHO, Pedakakani Police Station, Guntur District, for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 120-B r/w 34 IPC basing upon the 4 mediatornama dated 5.1.2017 without having any authority and also in violation of law laid down by this Court and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he in business of Bio-products having obtained license from the competent agency and distributing the same in Guntur, Krishna and Prakasham Districts of Andhra Pradesh. On 05.01.2017 the 3rd respondent registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2017 on the file of the S.H.O., Pedakakani Police Station, Guntur District, for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 120-B r/w.34 of IPC basing upon the mediatornama. It is further stated that the license of the petitioner firm is valid till 2018 and he has godown at his registered place and distributing the Bio- products which is not at all an offence. Further, on earlier occasion, this petitioner firm approached this Hon'ble Court when agriculture department people harassing them and obtained an order along with others and they have submitted their products as per the orders of this Hon'ble court dated 14.07.2015 in W.P.No.21666 of 2015. It is further stated that this Hon'ble Court time and again directing the concerned authorities to deal with the Bio- products and in case, prohibited substances was found in any bio-product, liberty was given to them to take action either under the provisions of Insecticides Act 1968 or Fertilizers (Control) Order 1985. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent even registered the case under Sections 420, 120-B r/w 34 IPC which is non bailable without there being any complaint which is in 5 violation of the procedure contemplated under law. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Heard Sri G.L. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.
4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition contended that in the present case there is no complaint either from any farmer or from the concerned department, but the 3rd respondent with an intention to harass, foisted the present case against the petitioner. The 3rd respondent is saying that on seeing with naked eye and decided that they are fake and petitioner is selling fake and contra brand bio- products and cheating the farmers by selling the same to them. He further submits that the petitioner has every right to challenge the illegal and unethical acts of the respondents while availing other remedies available to him under various provisions. He also submits that in similar circumstances this Court has passed an order in WPMP No.47853 of 2016 in WP No.38845 of 2016
5. On perusing the material available on record, it is observed that, in similar circumstances, in a catena of cases, this Court time and again directing the concerned authorities to deal with the Bio-products and in case, prohibited substances was found in any bio-product, liberty was given to them to take action either under the provisions of Insecticides Act 1968 or Fertilizers (Control) Order 1985.
6
6. In the present case, it is observed that, there is no complaint either from any farmer or from the concerned department, but the 3rd respondent with an intentional to harass the petitioner, foisted the present case against the petitioner. It is also observed that the collection of sample and the process of passing order shall not be resorted to routinely but should be on credible information that the product is causing damage to the public agriculture activity and on prima facie satisfaction of such information only they have to proceed as procedure contemplated under law. Even the 3 rd respondent registered the case under Section 420, 120-B r/w 34 IPC which is non bailable without there being any complaint which is in violation of the procedure contemplated under law.
7. In similar circumstances, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad disposed of W.P. No.25293 of 2014 and batch, by order dated 10.7.2015, with certain guidelines. Another learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.P. Nos.14458 of 2019 and batch, dated 16.7.2019, while extracting the guidelines in W.P. No.25293 of 2014 and batch, and the observations of the Division Bench, in appeals, in Writ Appeal Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016, dated 03.11.2016, observed at paragraph Nos.4 and 5 as follows:
4. However, to make the issue clear, the observations and directions of the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 17 to 19 are extracted herein:
"17. It is not clear from the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions, whether all the petitioners are indulging in similar type of activities or not. It is also not clear whether all the petitioners are manufacturers or dealers in the bio-products. The bio-product is a broad word which may include a bio-fertilizer or 7 some other material substance containing insecticidal properties. But, the product in which the petitioners are dealing is being used in agriculture only. The case of the petitioners is that in the absence of any law, the respondents cannot interfere with their activities, whereas, the respondents state that in the absence of any information furnished by the petitioners, they are handicapped in regulating their activities.
18. In the said circumstances, this Court cannot hold that the activities of the petitioners and the interference of the respondents are totally illegal. A balance has to be maintained in the facts and circumstances of the case, but such balance must have the sanction of law. The existing provisions are the provisions of Insecticides Act and Fertilizer (Control) Order. The provisions of these two enactments are sufficient to regulate the activities of the petitioners. 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 can see whether one or the other provisions of the said enactments can be applied. The respondents cannot interfere with the activities of the petitioners without following due process of law. The petitioners are entitled to exercise their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India, but the said right is subject to a restriction enunciated in the said Article.
19. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
i) The petitioners shall not deal with bio-products without maintaining proper packing and marking of the product. The packing of bio-products shall contain the ingredients included in the product, analytical procedure and their percentage. This enables the authority to verify the contents of the product.
ii) The manufacturer of every bio-product should intimate the concerned Commissioner of Agriculture with regard to the manufacturing activity undertaken by it with name of the product, process and its content. The Commissioner of Agriculture need not grant any permission and mere information from the manufacturer is enough for this purpose. The Commissioner of Agriculture shall issue an acknowledgement of such information.
iii) The dealer of bio-products should have the information with regard to the source of purchase of bio-products and shall maintain a register for the said purpose in order to enable the authorities to inspect the stock from time to time.
iv) It is for the authorities to inspect the bio-products in the location of the manufacturer prior to its dispatch to the dealer or in the location of the dealer and take sample thereof in order to verify whether any such product contains harmful substances attracting the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 or used as a fertilizer violating the provisions of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. The sample of the product shall be collected from the said source by the authorities under the signature of the persons dealing with bio-products and the authority who is collecting for the purpose of sending it to the appropriate Laboratory in order to verify the contents of the said product.8
v) From a copy of the report if any prohibited substance is found by the authority, the authority shall issue a notice along with a copy of the report to the persons dealing with the product and take necessary action against such persons either under the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 or Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. After receipt of the explanation from the person, the authority can pass appropriate orders under the provisions of the said enactments.
vi) The report from the concerned Laboratory shall be obtained as expeditiously as possible, preferably not later than a week from the date of collection of the sample and till such time, the concerned authority can withhold manufacture and sale of bio-
product. Against the order passed by the authority who collected sample, the aggrieved party can file an appeal to the higher authority as provided in the above provisions if so advised.
vii) The collection of samples and the process of passing order shall not be resorted to routinely but should be on credible information that the product is causing damage to the public agriculture activity and on prima facie satisfaction of such information.
viii) The respondents shall not violate the law and resort to unnecessary harassment of the manufacturers or dealers in a routine manner."
5. In appeal, the Division Bench observed as follows:
"While we are in complete agreement with the submission of Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner, that there cannot be an omnibus categorisation, of all bio-products as insecticides, for the purpose of taking action under the Act, the grounds on which the Insecticide Inspector has reason to believe, that insecticides are being sold in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, would depend upon the facts of each case, and cannot be circumscribed by way of guidelines issued by this Court. The guidelines prescribed, in the order under appeal, can only supplement and not supplant the law, and would remain in force only till appropriate legislation- either plenary or subordinate -is made in this regard. Suffice it, while making it clear that there cannot be an omnibus categorisation of all bio-products as insecticides for taking action against the dealers of those goods, to also make it clear that the guidelines, prescribed in the order under appeal, shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the powers conferred on the concerned authorities under the Act and the Rules. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on whether or not any of these bio-products are insecticides, as these are matters which the authorities concerned are required to examine in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules made thereunder, and the guidelines stipulated in the order under appeal. The order under appeal is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove, and the Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs."9
8. In view of the above observations, subject to the petitioner complying with the guidelines issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.25293 of 2014 and batch, as confirmed by the Division Bench in W.P. Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016, the respondents shall not interfere with the manufacturing, distribution and sale of bio-products. However, this order does not preclude the respondents to inspect the petitioner-company, in accordance with the provisions of the Insecticides Act and the Fertilizer (Control) Order, if so require, by following due procedure and taking appropriate steps as warranted by law.
9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the writ petition shall stand closed.
______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 18-06-2024 Gvl 10 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.7548 of 2017 Date : 18 .06.2024 Gvl