Gujarat High Court
Gujarat vs State on 30 July, 2010
Author: H.K.Rathod
Bench: H.K.Rathod
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8861/2010 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8861 of 2010
=========================================================
GUJARAT
STATE CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DIPEN A DESAI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 30/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr. DA Desai on behalf of petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Desai made a mention in first session that he require some urgent order from this Court. Therefore, he has filed one petition and permit him to circulate petition in second session. Considering urgency as mentioned by learned advocate Mr. Desai, permission is granted by this Court to circulate Special Civil Application in second session. Accordingly, Registry has sent papers to this Court of present SCA no. 8861/2010. The copy of present petition is served to learned AGP Mr. AL Sharma appearing on behalf of respondent state authority.
The petitioner Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd is having yearly turn over of Rs. 1,300 Crore, out of which Rs. 1,100 Crore is in respect to turn over of fertilizers. Out of total distribution of fertilizer in State of Gujarat, petitioner Society distributed about 60% of total distribution.
Learned advocate Mr. Desai submitted that since long management of petitioner society is being undertaken by members of Managing Committee, majority of whom are supporting ideology of Indian National Congress, which is opposed to party in power in State Government. The party in power has in last many elections of petitioner society lost and has not been able to regain control over management of petitioner society. Therefore, adopting such dubious means to regain control over petitioner society.
He submitted that majority of business undertaken by petitioner society is distribution of fertilizer and if said activity is taken away by State Government, petitioner would lose its existence and therefore just to achieve aforesaid target, State Government initiated action to take out petitioner society from channel of distribution of fertilizer. The petitioner society has opposed move made by State Government and also it has been opposed by members of Society and by farmers. Therefore, State Government at relevant time did not pursue same. However, by another attempt to see that petitioner society is taken out of channel of distribution of fertilizer. Learned advocate Mr. Desai submitted that respondent no. 2 sought information in tabular form giving details about distribution of fertilizer for a period from 1/6/2010 to 23/7/2010 within a period of two days by letter dated 23/7/2010 Annexure F page 25.
After receiving aforesaid letter, petitioner society requested to grant some more time as it was not possible to furnish details as required by respondent within a period of two days.
After receiving aforesaid request made by petitioner society on 28/7/2010, immediately, an answer is given by Director of Agriculture, State Government that such information must have to be supplied as per Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 clause 35. Therefore, again, it was insisted by respondent to supply details within a period of two days, otherwise, action will be initiated against petitioner society for breach of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.
The petitioner society has also made request again to respondent no. 2 by letter dated 28/7/2010 page 26 Annexure G that some more time is required to be granted by respondent which require further details from various Co-operative societies and by taking help from computer, which is not much helpful because computer facility is not available with each society. Therefore, further time has been sought by petitioner society from respondent which atleast suggested about one month for supplying details to respondent no. 2.
After receiving aforesaid letter dated 28/7/2010 from petitioner society, immediately on 29/7/2010 request made by petitioner society has been rejected and threat has been given to petitioner society by respondent no. 2 that if within two days details which has been required to be supplied in prescribe tabular form is not received by respondent no. 2, then respondent no. 2 will definitely initiate action against present petitioner society for breach of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and ultimately, it resulted to cancelling authorization of selling fertilizer.
Learned advocate Mr. Desai submitted that details which has been sought for by respondent no. 2, why it require such urgency or immediate, there is no purpose or any reason assign by respondent no. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Desai submitted that petitioner society is prepared to supply all details which require by respondent no. 2 but it require some reasonable time for supplying it to respondent no. 2.
He submitted that some suitable direction may be issued to respondent no. 2 while extending period for supplying details as sought by respondent no. 2 as per letter dated 23/7/2010.
Learned AGP Mr. Sharma appearing for respondent state authority opposed submission made by learned advocate Mr. Desai. He also submitted that respondent no. 2 has rightly demanded certain details which is necessary in interest of administration.
I have considered submission made by both learned advocates and I have also considered averment made in present petition as well as also perusing all annexures which are annexed to petition. Prima facie, hasty steps taken found from record by respondent no. 2 without assigning any special reason or urgency for details to be received from petitioner society. However, details which has been sought for from petitioner society by letter dated 23/7/2010 not giving sufficient time to petitioner society for supplying it and reasonable request, which has been made by petitioner society has been rejected without any cogent reason.
Therefore, in light of this back ground, let petitioner society may supply all details as required by respondent no. 2 Director of Agriculture as per letter dated 23/7/2010 page 25 Annexure F within a period of three weeks from date of receiving copy of present order. Meanwhile, it is directed to respondent no. 2 Director of Agriculture not to take any adverse or coercive measures for breach of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 against petitioner society till detail supply by petitioner society to respondent no. 2 as per letter dated 23/7/2010 under provision of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.
In view of above observation and direction, present petition is disposed of by this Court without expressing any opinion on merits. Direct service today is permitted.
(H.K.RATHOD, J) asma Top