Patna High Court
Oswal Chemicals And Fertilizers Ltd. ... vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 22 June, 1999
Equivalent citations: AIR2000PAT19, AIR 2000 PATNA 19, 1999 BRLJ 222, (1999) 3 BLJ 676, (2000) 1 EFR 386, (1999) 2 PAT LJR 799
Author: Aftab Alam
Bench: Aftab Alam
ORDER Aftab Alam, J.
1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of urea in wholesale in different parts of the country, including the State of Bihar. It has come to this Court with this writ petition, along with one of its Directors and one of its employees, seeking to challenge the orders cancelling the certificate of registration granted to it under the provisions of the Furtilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (the F.C.O.' for short) for carrying on the business of selling fertilizer as a wholesale dealer in the State of Bihar.
2. The petitioner was given a notice to show cause why its certificate of registration be not cancelled for committing a number of Irregularities and violating, several directions issued by the authorities in making supplies of urea to this State during the Rabi season 1998-99. The show cause notice was issued by the Director, Agriculture in his capacity as the Registering Authority under the F.C.O. under his memo No. 21, dated 4-1-1999. The petitioner gave its reply to the notice by letter, dated 7-1-1999 (Annexure-9). Not being satisfied with the petitioner's explanation the director Agriculture cum-Registering Authority by his memo No. 564, dated 4-2-1999 (Annexure 10) directed for cancelling the petitioner's certificate of registration bearing No. 64, dated 10-5-1996. Against the order passed by the registering authority the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Agriculture Production Commissioner, the appellate authority prescribed under clause 32 of the F.C.O.
3. According to the petitioner, in course of hearing of the appeal, the appellate authority desired for a more detailed order from the Registering Authority, dealing elaborately with the grounds on which the petitioner's certificate was directed to be cancelled. The Registering Authority then, under his memo No.' 40, dated 24-2-1999, submitted an order shown to have been passed on 18-1-1999 (Annexure-12). After hearing the parties the appellate authority by order, dated 30-3-1999 (Amiexure 14) rejected the petitioner's appeal and affirmed the direction for the cancellation of its certificate of registration.
4. On a perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority it appears that the direction for cancellation of the petitioner's certificate was upheld on the following grounds :
1. In violation of the directions issued by the authorities the petitioner made supply and sale of urea which was not in accordance with the district wise allocation made by the Director, Agriculture. The issue of contravention of districtwise allocation by the petitioner was considered by the appellate authority mainly in respect of the districts of East and West Champaran with some references also being made to the districts of Begusaral and Saharsa.
2.1. In violation of the directions issued the petitioner sent the railway rakes carrying its urea to Adapur and Raxaul which were not in the list of approved rake points in the order issued by the Director, Agriculture. According to the order issued by the Director, Agriculture, rakes carrying supplies for the districts of East and West Champaran could only be sent to Motihari.
2.2. To petitioner's action in sending the rakes to Adapur and Raxaul was further held bad as it did not have any buffer godowns at those places.
3. And finally the petitioner violated the directions by selling urea from the rakes to wholesalers without giving prior intimation to the authorities and obtaining their approval concerning the wholesalers to whom the stock was to be sold.
5. According to the appellate authority even if the action of the petitioner in making supplies of urea to East Champaran, far in excess of its allocation for that district were to be condoned, the other two contraventions made by the petitioner were very serious and fully justified the cancellation of its certificate of registration.
6. Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the order cancelling the petitioner's certificate of registration by raising two points. He first submitted that the restrictions and conditions, the violation of which was being held against the petitioner were imposed by an order issued by the Director, Agriculture. That order was issued at a much belated stage (on 17-12-1998) while the supplies of urea to this State were set in motion much earlier under the statutory orders and directions issued by the Central Government. Mr. Singh stated that despatch of urea from the petitioner's factory at Shahjehanpur in U.P. to this State had to be planned in advance keeping into account various constraints e.g. supply of rakes by the railway. And for Rabi season 1998-99 the despatch plan had already been finalised and in fact the bulk to the supplies was already in the pipe line by the time the order was issued by the Director, Agriculture on 17-12-1998 and hence, it was not possible to adhere to the restrictions and conditions of district wise allocations and rake points as imposed by that order. According to Mr. Singh, therefore, the non-observance of the restrictions and conditions in question could not be made justifiably and reasonably, the ground for cancelling the petitioner's certificate of registration.
7. While the aforesaid submission made by Mr. Singh Is to be judged in the light of the facts and circumstances leading to the cancellation of the petitioner's certificate of registration, the second submission made by him raises a basic issue of considerable importance. Learned counsel questioned the very power and authority of the Director, Agriculture to lay down registrations and conditions, the violation of which has been made the basis of the impugned orders, cancelling the petitioner's certificate of registration. According to him neither the Registering Authority nor the Controller under the F.C.O. has the necessary statutory power to lay down the three restrictions/conditions in question. Hence, the restrictions/ conditions imposed by the order, dated 17-12-1998 issued by the Director, Agriculture were inoperative and unenforceable in the eye of law. The petitioner was, therefore, legally not obliged to follow them. That being the position the failure to comply with those restrictions/conditions could not be made the ground for cancelling its certificate of registration.
8. At this stage, it would be necessary to advert to some basic facts of this case. As noted above, petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has Its factory at Shahjehanpur in U.P. where It manufactures urea. The area is despatched for sale to different parts of the country, including this State.
9. The manufacture of fertilizer,' its statewise distribution, sale and other allied matters are regulated and controlled by the fertilizer. (Control) Order, 1985 framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Essential* Commodities Act. Clause 6 of the F.C.O. empowers the Central Government to direct any manufacturer to sell the fertilizers produced by him in such quantity and in such State or States and within such period as may be specified in the notification.
10. The dispute in this case relates to Rabi season 1998-99. The Rabi season begins from the 1st day of October and comes to a close on the, last day of March. Therefore, the relevant period so far as the present case is concerned is from 1-10-1998 to 31-3-1999.
11. Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh submitted that even before the commencement of the Rabi season 1998-99 the Central Government issued an order dated 14-9-1998 (Annexure 2) making statewise allocation of urea in terms of clause 6 of the F.C.O. In terms of that order the petitioner was required to supply 90,000 metrictons of urea to this State during the Rabi season 1998-99. (That was later enhanced by another 30,000 metric tons but that is not of any significance for the present).
12. After the order making Statewise allocation, the petitioner received orders, dated 30-9-1998, 30-10-1998, 30-11-1998 and 30-12-1998 (Annexure 3 to 3'/3). These orders were issued under the provisions of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order. 1973 and in terms of those orders the petitioner was obliged to make month wise supplies to Bihar in the following manner :
During October, 1998 :
20,000 metric tons.
During November, 1998 :
20,000 do During December, 1998 : 20,000 do During January, 1999 : 21.000 do
13. Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh submitted that the order making Statewise allocation and the orders directing movement of urea from the petitioner's production plant to this State were statutory in nature and the petitioner was bound to follow them strictly.
14. Learned counsel submitted that as against the timely and prompt issuance of orders by the Central Government, the Director. Agriculture, Government of Bihar came out with an order for the first time on 17-12-1998 (Annexure 6). In that order a number of restrictions/conditions were laid down in connection with the supply of urea of this State. These included allocations being made districtwise, fixation of rake points i.e. the railway stations where alone the rakes carrying urea from outside the State could arrive and the condition concerning prior approval from the authorities regarding the wholesellers to whom urea could be sold. In terms of this order, the petitioner was to make nil supply of urea to the district of West Champaran and 1025 metric tons of urea in the district of East Champaran. Further, the specified rake points in that order for all supplies of urea coming to the districts of East and' West Champaran was Motihari.
15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner supplied 3285.35 metric tons of urea in East Champaran and 1147.55 metric tons in West Champaran. It is also undeniable that a number of its rakes arrived at Adapur and Raxaul and not at Motihari. According to the State, the petitioner was thus guilty of contravening the conditions as contained in the order dated 17-12-1998.
16. Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh submitted that it must not be over looked that the order of the Director, Agriculture was issued after much delay and practically after the Rabi season was half over. Before that the Central Government orders, statutorily binding upon the petitioner, were issued 3 to 31/2 months earlier and on that basis the petitioner had already drawn up Its district wise despatch plan and submitted it before the Director, Agriculture, Bihar on 26-10-1998 (Annexure 4). Mr. Singh further submitted that the despatch of urea in bulk quantities was also dependent upon the availability of taken being made by the railways. In that regard it was staged that Shahjehanpur had passing through It both broad gauge and meter gauge railway lines and, therefore, when the railways gave meter gauge rakes, the petitioner having no choice in the matter accepted the officer. The meter gauge rakes could only come to Adaur and Raxaul which were on meter gauge and not to Motihari which was not on meter guage. Mr. Singh emphasised that when the petitioner was working out the details of its despatch to this State and when it settled on sending urea to this State by meter gauge rakes the restriction of rake points had not come into being. It was stated on behalf of the petitioner that the two rakes arrived at Adapur and Raxaul on December 18 and 24, 1998 and they had started from Shahjehanpur on December 6 and 16, 1998 respectively i.e. before the issuance of the order dated 17-12-1998. Itwas further stated that on each occasion advance intimation was given to the District Agriculture Officer, Motihart regarding arrival of rakes at Adapur and Raxaul and complete distribution report of urea was also submitted giving particulars of the wholesalers and quantity of urea sold to each of them (Annexure 5 series). It was also submitted that in the order issued by the Director, Agriculture the fixation of rake points besides being highly belated was made in a wholly unreasonable manner; rake points were fixed by the Director, Agriculture without consulting not only the manufacturers supplying urea from outside the State but also the railway authorities whose help and co-operation was vital In moving fertilizers in bulk quantities around the country. It was stated that the petitioners bona fides can be judged from the fact that" on the issuance of the order, dated 17-12-1998 when It transpired that Adapur-Raxaul were not among the approved list of rake points, a representation (Annexure 7) was Immediately filed on behalf of the petitioner on 22-12-1998 making a request to add the meter gauge rake points, including Adapur-Raxaul, in the approved list of rake points.
17. It was also alleged that action was taken against the petitioner selectively and no action was taken against some other manufacturers/suppliers who sent their rakes to Bettlah which too was not In the approved list of rate points.
18. Mr. Ganga Prasad Roy, A. A. G. HI opposed the writ petition strenuously. He submitted that It was incorrect to say that the rakes arriving at Adapur-Raxaul had all started from Shahjehanpur before the issuance of the order on 17-12-1998. Restated that rakes carrying the petitioners urea kept coming to Adapur-Raxaul long after the Issuance of the order dated 17-12-1998.
19. At this Juncture Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh interrupted and firmly stated that the last rake to come to Raxaul had arrived on 24-11-1998 and it had stated from. Shahjehanpur on 16-12-1998. He also pointed out that the order was issued on 17-12-1998 and the petitioner's certificate was suspended and the petitioner was restrained from making any sale in Bihar by the show cause notice dated 4-1-1999. It would be, therefore, Incorrect to say that irregularities were committed 'long after' the issuance of the order. Whatever happened, during the 18 days between the Issuance of the order and the suspension of the petitioner's certificate and as submitted by him earlier the process had been set into motion several weeks before the order was issued. Mr. A. A.O. III, however, was quite unrelenting. He submitted that in violation of the terms of the certificate of registration, the petitioner took its rakes to Adapur-Raxaul where it had no godowns as appearing from Its certificate. Further, in gross violation of the direction given by the Director, Agriculture in his order dated 17-12-1998, the petitioner sold the stock of urea without obtaining prior approval from the authorities regarding the wholesellers to whom sales could be made.
20. I have noted above the submissions made on behalf of the parties on the question whether the petitioner's actions were in wilful and deliberate violation of the directions issued by the authorities and, therefore, its certificate was liable to be cancelled or whether in the facts and circumstances it was beyond the petitioner's control o comply with those directions and, therefore, it would be unjust, unfair and unreasonable to cancel its certificate on that ground.
21. I, however, need not deal with this question any further as the unyielding stand taken by the parties has pushed to the front the second point raised on behalf of the petitioner, questioning the validity and enforceability of the conditions/restrictions in question.
22. However, before proceeding to examine the petitioner's challenge to the validity of the restrictions / conditions in question, I would wish to observe that the attitude of the State In this case does seem to be somewhat unduly stringent. One should have expected the State to take a more flexible view, at least for Rabi season 1998-99, having regard to the inordinate delay after which the order in question was issued when the season was practically half over. But the State caring little about its own lapse appears to take a rather rigid and inflexible stand. It thus practically forced the issue regarding the authority and power of the Registering Authority and the Controller under the F.C.O. to impose those conditions.
23. Mr. Havaniti Prasad Singh submitted that the provision regarding cancellation of registration certificate was contained in Clause 31 of the P.C.O. which in so far as relevant for the present is as follows :
"31. Suspension/cancellation of registra tion certificate :
(i) A registering authority or, as the case may be, the Controller may, after giving the holder of a certificate of registration, of a certificate of manufacture of any other certificate granted under this Order, an opportunity of being heard, suspend or cancel such certificate on any of the following grounds, namely -
(a) ................................
(b) that any of the provisions of this order or any of the terms and conditions of such certificate has been contravened or not fulfilled.""
24. On the basis of Clause 31 Mr. Singh submitted, and in my opinion quite rightly that the certificate of registration could be cancelled only for the contravention of the provisions of the F.C.O. or the terms and conditions of the certificate. But in this case the conditions concerning the district-wise allocations, approved rake points and sale of urea only to such wholesellers in respect of whom prior approval was obtained from the authorities did not relate to any provision in the F.C.O. or any terms and conditions of the certificate of registration. All the conditions in question were imposed by the order issued by the Director, Agriculture. He further submitted that no provision of the F.C.O. and no terms and conditions in the certificate empowered the Director Agriculture-cum-Registering Authority, on for that matter the Controller of Fertilizers to impose such conditions/registrations. Thus, the conditions were laid down by an executive order having no statutory sanction. The conditions clearly imposed restrictions-on the petitioner's right to carry on trade and business and restrictions against a fundamental right could not be imposed by executive flats with no legislative sanction behind them. Mr. Singh concluded by submitting that for the aforesaid reasons, the conditions in question as contained in the order dated 17-12-1998 issued by the Director. Registration were wholly illegal, invalid, in operative and unenforceable and non-observance of those conditions, therefore, could not be made the ground for cancelling the petitioner's certificate of registration.
25. In the earlier part of this judgment it is noted that the appellate authority cited four directions/conditions which were violated by the petitioner. It is now proposed to examine the validity of each of these directions/conditions.
26. One of the conditions related to sale of area and in that connection it was directed that the stock would be sold only to such whole sellers in respect of whom prior approval was obtained from the authorities. The petitioner is said to have contravened this direction and the appellate authority expressed himself quite strongly in that regard.
27. However, no provision in the F.C.O or in the certificate of registration was brought to my notice which either laid down such a condition or authorised the Registering Au-thority to impose such a condition. Moreo-ver, the question of validity of this particular direction/condition stands concluded in the petitioner's favour by a bench decision of this court in M/s. Ashok Tyre Agency v. State of Bihar and another (CWJC No. 5029/1993). In that case the certificate of registration was cancelled on the sole ground that the petitioner had violated the direction given by the District Agriculture Officer, the Registering Authority requiring the petitioner to sell, stock of fertilizer only to certain specified group of persons, and it had thereby violated condition No. 5 as modified by Section O. 795 E, dated 22-11-1991 of the terms and conditions of the certificate of registration. A bench of this Court by order, dated 8-1Q-1993 allowed the writ petition and struck down the order cancelling the certificate of registration. In passing that order reliance was placed on an earlier decision of this court in M/s. Shri Krishna Rice & Oil Mills Limited v. State of Bihar, 1LR (1976) 55 Patna 281, In the earlier decision it was held that the Registering Authority could not issue such a direction and that both the Registering Authority and the State Government in herently lacked jurisdiction for passing such a direction. Following the decision in M/s. Shri Krishna Rice & Oil Mills^the case of M/s. Ashok Tyre Agency was allowed in the following terms :
"In our view, the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court; as such, it has to be held that the registering authority had no Jurisdiction to give such direction to the petitioner purporting to act under condition No. 5 of certificate of Registration or under any other provision of 1985 Order. Since the order of suspension as also the order of cancellation of certificate of registration is for infraction of such a direction, which is invalid In law, we are clearly of the view that the order of suspension and cancellation has been passed upon a ground which is no nest.
"Accordingly, the unit petition is allowed and the orders contained in Annexures 8 and 10 are hereby quashed."
28. How coming to the next issue of the petitioner taking its rakes to Adapur --Raxaul where it did not have buffer godowns as appearing from its certificate of registration, Mr. A. A. G. HI was quite vehement that the petitioner's certificate was liable to cancellation on this ground along which according to him was a breach of the terms of the licence. I am unable to follow how it can be said to be In breach of a term of the licence. Clause 7 of the. F.C.O. is as follows :
"No person, including a manufacturer, an importer, a pool handling agency, a wholesale dealer, a retail dealer and an industrial dealer shall offer for sale or carry on the business of selling fertilizers at any place except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a certificate of regisiration granted to him under Clause 9.
"Provided that a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt from the provisions of this clause any person selling fertilizers to farmers in such areas and subject to such conditions as may be specified in that notification."
29. The relevant portion of the certificate which is in the statutory form 'B' is as follows:
"........................... is hereby granted certificate of registration to carry on the bush ness of selling fertilisers in retail/wholesale/for Industrial use at the place specified below in the State of Bihar subject to the terms and conditions specified below and to the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE AND TYPE OF BUSINESS Name and style by which the business is carried on Location of sale depot Location of godowns attached to sale depot.
Type of fertiliser Source ofsupply
30. In the petitioner's certificate, a Patna address is recorded in the column of location of sale depot. In the column of location of godowns attached to sale depot, godowns are shown at ten places which do not include either Adapur or Raxaul.
31. It maybe noted that the restriction in terms of Clause .7 and the provision in the certificate is that an officer for sale or a transaction of sale can be made only at the sale depot. There is no allegation that the sales were made at places other than the one recorded in the certificate. No provision was brought to my notice which would prohibit that urea must not be taken to a place where the petitioner did not have a .godown. I pointedly asked Mr. A.A.G. III whether there was any provision in the F.C.O. or the certifi-cate of registration which would prohibit an ex-factory" sale or a sale made in course of Inter-State trade and business within the meaning of Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act. I pointed out that in both these cases urea may have to be transported to the place of the buyer's choice and where the petitioner may not have Its godown. Mr. A.A.G. HI was unable to give any satisfactory reply to the question. Further, 1 think that for another reason the respondents cannot be allowed to make this issue as the basis for cancelling the petitioner's certificate. It may be noted that by virtue of the districtwise allocations made in the order, dated 17-12-1998 issued by the Director Agriculture the petitioner was required to supply urea in a number of districts which included Jehanabad. Aurangabad, Sasaram, Siwan and Gopalganj. The petitioner does not have any godowns at those places' as appearing from its certificate of registration and yet he was directed by the Director; Agriculture to supply urea in those districts. In other words, ' the State was itself asking the petitioner to carry urea to places where it does not have any godown. That being the position it is self- evident that this cannot be made a ground for cancellation of its certificate of registration.
32. The two remaining conditions relate to districtwise allocations and fixation of rake points where alone urea being supplied outside the State could come. No provision in the F.C.O. was brought to my notice which could be said even by implication, said to empower the State Officials to impose such conditions.
33. It may be noted that Clause 7 of the F.C.O. is a specific provision empowering the Central Government to make Statewise allocations. There is no analogous provision empowering the State Government or the Controller or the Registering Authority to make districtwise allocations in the State. [The inference to my mind is clear that the Registering Authority and the Controller do not have any such powers.
34. On examining the provision of the Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1985, it appears that Clause 2(e) defines the Controller of Fertilizers while the Registering Authority is defined in Clause 2 (s).
35. By notification No. Section O. 572(E), dated 26-6-1995 issued by the Central Government the Director, Agriculture. Government of Bihar, was appointed as the officer to exercise the functions of the Controller under Clause 35 of the F.C.O.
36. Clause 8 of the F.C.O. provides that an application foe registration is to be made either before the registering Authority or in case of industrial use before the Controller. Clause 9 provides that the Registering Authority or the Controller, as the case may be will grant certificate of registration except where the applicant was disqualified for the reasons stated in that clause. Clause 21 provides that every container in which any fertilizer is packed would bear only such particulars and nothing else as may be specified by the Controller. Under Clause 21A every manufacturer is obliged to possess minimum laboratory facility as maybe specified from time to time by the Controller. Under Clause 31 the Controller and the Registering Authority are empowered to suspend or cancel the registration on the grounds that the certificate was obtained by misrepresentation as to material particulars of the holder of certificate contravened the provisions pf the order or the terms and conditions of the certificate. The next two clauses in which the Controller figures are clauses 33 relating to the grant of duplicate copy of certificate of registration and clause 34 providing for amendment of certificate of registration. Similarly if the powers and functions of the Registering Authority are scrutinised one does not find any provision empowering him to issue directions of the nature which form the subject matter of controversy in this case. Even by streching to the utmost the powers and functions assigned to the Controller and the Registering Authority In the F.C.O. it cannot be held that the issuance of the controversial directions are the' necessary concomitant of those functions and powers. It must, therefore, be held that the controversial directions were Issued without any supporting provision in the Control Order.
37. At this stage Mr. A.A.G. III submitted that the directions in questions were neces sary regulatory measures and those were essential to ensure a proper distribution of fertilizers all over the State. 1 am unable to accept the submission. In matters restricting the right to carry on trade and business, good intentions on the part of the executive are no substitute for legislative sanction. In my view, in the absence of proper legislative sanction, the impugned directions cannot be sustained simply on the ground that those were issued with a positive object arid in the larger interest of the farmers of the State. In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, AIR 1987 SC 748, it was held by the Apex Court as follows (Para 15) :
"The law" is now well settled that any law which may be made under Clases (2) to (6) of Article 19 to regulate the exercise of the rights to the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19 (l)(a) to (e) and (g) must be 'a law' having statutory force and not a mere executive or departmental instructions. In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295 the question arose whether a police regulation which was a mere departmental instruction, having no statutory basis could be said to Be a law for the purpose of Article 19(2) to (6). The Constitution Bench answered the question in the negative and said :
'Though learned counsel for the respondent started by attempting such a justification by invoking Section 12 of the Indian Police Act he gave this up and conceded that the regulations contained in Chap. XX had no such statutory basis but were merely executive or departmental instructions framed for the guidance of the police officers. They would not, therefore, be "a law" which the State Is entitled to make under the relevant Clases (2) to (6) of Article 19 in order to regulate or curtail fundamental rights guaranteed by the several sub-clauses of Article 19(1), nor would the same be "a procedure established by law" within Article 21. The position, therefore, is that if the action of the police which is the arm of the executive of the State is found to infringe any of the freedoms guaranteed to the petitioner the petitioner would be entitled to relief of mandamus which he seeks, to restrain in the State from taking action under the regulations,"
"The two circulars on which the department has placed reliance in the present case have no statutory basis and are mere departmental instructions. They cannot, therefore, form the foundation of any action aimed at denying to citizen's Fundamental Right under Article 19 (l)(a)."
38. A Division Bench of this Court in Shyam Sundar Prasad Bhadani v. State of Bihar, 1984 Pat LJR 17 observed as follows ".......................The power to earmark levy cement out of the total production lies with the Central Government. The District Magistrate or the Food Commissioner of the State of Bihar does not have any authority to interfere with same....................... It is regrettable that artificial authority is occasionally created, but the problem cannot be solved by exercise of power not vested in the authority." It has to be remedied by a lawful action."
39. Mr. A.A.G. III in order to seek legislative support for the controversial directions referred to Sections 3, 4 and 5 particularly clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. I do not see how those provisions can be of any help to the State in this case. He also referred to clauses 2 (c), 6, 7, 8, 9, 26 and 28 of the F.C.O. Those provisions have already been considered by me while examining the powers and functions of the Controller of Fertilizers. Mr. A.A.G. III also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Bishambar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U. P., AIR 1982 SC 33 (paras 20 and 41). In my considered view that decision has no application to the facts of this case.
40. On a careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, this court has no hesitation in finding that the controversial directions as contained in the order dated 17-12-1998 issued by the Director, Agriculture had no legal validity and enforceability. Therefore, the violation of those directions could not form the basis for cancelling the petitioners's certificate of registration. I accordingly set aside the impugned orders as contained In Annexures 10, 12 and 14 and direct the concerned authorities' to restore the petitioner's certificate of registration without any delay.
41. In the result, this writ petition Is allowed but with no order as to costs.