Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The learned counsel submits that, even in the regulations, it was nowhere stated that N.R.L. is authorized to test growth regulator. It was the duty of the N.R.L., APEDA and the notified laboratories to get themselves updated. The petitioners could not have sent their products to any other laboratory other than nominated laboratory. When the N.R.L. and the nominated laboratories by the Central Government itself do not possess the necessary infrastructure, nor information with regard to the growth regulator, the petitioners cannot be faulted for the presence of growth regulator. The export of the said product was and is since beginning under control and supervision of the APEDA, the authority constituted under the Act of 1985. The petitioners are the agriculturists and farmers. For the rejection 8 wp 1979.11 of the export consignment the fault lies with the APEDA and not with the petitioners. The regulations provided by the APEDA are required to be followed by all the authorities including the petitioners. The regulations provided by APEDA did not even whisper about the test with regard to growth regulator and the respondents had certified the product. After rejection of the said product, the respondent authorities and the institutions cannot turn around and deny their liability/responsibility. The petitioners have suffered huge loss because of the fault of the Central Government and its institutions. The whole consignment was rejected. Thereafter the Government directed consignment to be taken to other places. The grapes may have been rejected as per the standards of the European countries.

5. The learned counsel further submits that, in the wake of such eventualities, the legislature has provided remedy and measures in view of Sec. 10 of the Act of 1985. Sub Section 2 of Sec. 10 of the Act of 1985 mandates the authority to create the funds as per Sec. 16 of the Act of 1985. The Executive has 9 wp 1979.11 miserably failed to abide by their obligations. The learned counsel submits that, the Legislature has made the law, but the Executive has failed to implement the same. It is submitted that, after the rejection of the consignment on the ground of presence of growth regulator, the amendments are carried out in the annexure by the APEDA and now they have provided test for growth regulator also . Till the consignment was rejected, no test was provided for growth regulator. The loss is on account of the negligence on the part of the Government institutions only. The petitioners are entitled for the compensation. The learned counsel submits that, the respondents be directed to provide compensation to petitioners and further be directed to take measures as laid down U/Sec. 10 of the Act of 1985. The learned counsel submits that, the affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 also specifically accepts that, the monitoring plan was prepared by APEDA in consultation with National Referral Laboratory, State Government, Grape Growers Organization, Exporters and implemented through APEDA in Maharashtra. Even according to the State Government, APEDA finalizes the residue monitoring plan document and accordingly, updated the grapenet software for export of grape to the European Union. The said affidavit further states that, the field officers are appointed to carry out inspection as per the procedure laid down in RMP document and the report is updated on the grapenet software designed by APEDA. All this would show that, it is the APEDA who is responsible authority.

11. Instead of finding a solution, the Union and the State in their affidavit in reply tried to absolve themselves by passing the buck to the other. The union and the APEDA came up with the plea that APEDA does not issue any report in the entire process of grapes export and does not have any control on the supply chain as registration of farmers and testing the grape sample are carried by State Government and testing laboratories. Whereas State Government in its affidavit submits that, the role of State Government is to implement the procedure laid down by APEDA and N.R.C. grapes. If any issue is raised by European union, then it is to be dealt by APEDA and at Government of India level. The role of State Government is limited and restricted only to implementation of procedure laid down by APEDA.

19. It is in this context, we have recorded our anguish about the callous and/or casual manner in which the issue is dealt by the respondents. They cannot now turn around and take the plea that it is the exporter only who is responsible for the rejection of the consignments. APEDA is an export promotion body set up under the APEDA Act of 1985 for the development and promotion of the export of agricultural and processed food products. As discussed above APEDA cannot say that, it is alien to the process of export of grapes and take a stand that APEDA has no control on the supply chain as registration of farmers and testing grapes are carried out by the State Government and its 24 wp 1979.11 laboratories. APEDA does not dispute the petitioners are registered with it as manufacturers and exporters. APEDA has provided for regulation of export for fresh grapes to the European Union through "Control of Pesticides Residue". The same was developed with consultation of all stakeholders. APEDA is trying to enter into a verbal jugglery by saying that, it is only export facilitating body and not the export regulatory body. The stakeholders include APEDA, NRL, nominated laboratories and exporter.