Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: fertilizer control order in M/S Tata Chemicals Ltd vs State Of Haryana on 7 May, 2024Matching Fragments
2. The brief facts of the case are that Baljeet Singh, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer-cum-Fertilizer Inspector Tohana on 18.11.2014 in the presence of Sh. Radhey Sham, Proprietor of M/s Kewal Fertilizers 50-Anaj Mandi Jakhal Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad checked the fertilizer stock 1 of 24 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063073 2024:PHHC:063073 CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M) -2- of the firm and found that 4 Kgs x 85 packets of Zinc Sulphate Monohydrate 33% was lying in balance in the said premises on 18.11.2014. The samples of the same were taken for the purposes of a quality check. The same were sent for analysis and as per the report of the Analytical Chemist Quality Control Lab (Fertilizer) Hisar, the sample test result showed Zinc contents to be 29.87% as against 33% and thus, the analysis report showed that the sample was not according to the specifications and had failed in Zinc contents. A show cause notice was served by the Fertilizer Inspector-cum-Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Tohana to M/s Kewal Fertilizers 50-Anaj Mandi Jakhal Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad for violation of Clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and a copy of the analysis report was also supplied. Show cause notices were also sent to the manufacturing company i.e. M/s Chakradhar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. E-3, UPSIDC, Industrial Area Begarjpur Muzaffarnagar and marketing company M/s Tata Chemicals Limited, Regd. Office Bombay House-24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai and replies were submitted by M/s Kewal Fertilizers 50-Anaj Mandi Jakhal Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad, M/s Chakradhar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. E-3, UPSIDC, Industrial Area Begarjpur Muzaffarnagar and M/s Tata Chemicals Limited, Regd. Office Bombay House-24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai. The Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Tohana also called upon the dealer, manufacturing company and marketing company to appear personally and to explain the matter regarding failure of the sample. The dealer, manufacturer and marketing company failed to avail the opportunity of re-analysis of the sample provided to them under Clause 32-A of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985.
(emphasis supplied) In Kehar Singh (supra), it was held as under:-
"The pleadings which are not in dispute and has been referred to above, clearly indicates that the samples which were drawn from the bags were taken from the stitched bags. Form J, which is required to be issued at the time when the sample is taken wherein signatures of not only Authorized Authority under the Fertilizer Control Order 1985 is put but also that of the dealer/manufacturer as also the fertilizer inspector, there is no mention in the said form that there was either any tampering with the bags or that the packaging of the bags was not as per rules and regulations. What has been stated merely is that the bags were stitched. If any 5 of 24 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063073 2024:PHHC:063073 CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M) -6- irregularity or discrepancy had been found by the raiding party, the same would have found mention in Form J but there is none. The additional presumptions which the counsel for the State intend to draw during arguments cannot be accepted. In case the samples were drawn from the stitched bags wherein no irregularity or discrepancy was found therein, the dealers cannot be held liable and it is only the manufacturer who has to respond to the sample having failed or did not fulfill the specifications required. In the absence of any evidence on record, or the statement to the effect that the petitioners were in any manner associated in the manufacture of the fertilizer contained in the bags, they cannot be held liable for the contents of the fertilizer.
x any substance as a fertiliser which substance is not, in fact, a fertiliser; or x any fertilizer without exhibiting the minimum guaranteed percentage by weight ofplant nutrient."
Regulation 19 of the Fertilizer Order was considered and struck down by this court in Tarsem Singh versus Union of India, (1997) 115PLR34, while observing as under:
"12. Summing up Regulation 19 of the impugned Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 is a piece of unfair legislation. It has given an arbitrary power, to the Government to prosecute a person, who cannot show in a Court of Law that the report of the Public Analyst who has declared the sample of the fertiliser as 'substandard', could possibly fall in an error leading to his conclusions while testing the sample. It has also snatched a valuable right of a person who deals in the trade of fertilizer and sells the sealed and stitched bags as supplied to him by the manufacturer. Even this piece of legislation 11 of 24 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063073 2024:PHHC:063073 CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M) -12- has made such dealer punishable who has properly stored the essential commodities as such 'fertilizer '. I am of the opinion that Regulation 19 of the impugned Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 is violative of Article 19 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in its present shape cannot be allowed to operate/stand and as such Regulation 19 of the Control Order is hereby struck down. Thus the first proposition is answered in the affirmative.
13 of 24 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063073 2024:PHHC:063073 CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M) -14- Nangal Fertilizer Ltd., Nangal. It is not disputed that to prove this fact DW. 1 has been examined, who was working as Accounts Officer at the relevant time with the National Fertilizers Ltd., Nangal. His evidence also shows that the fertilizer had been purchased by the appellants from National Fertilizers Ltd., Nangal. The evidence of DW.1 also further shows that if there is any manufacturing defect, the responsibility lies on the National Fertilizers Ltd, Nangal as the bags are stitched with automatic machines. Farther, the evidence of PW.2 who was the Enforcement Inspector, who was also present at the time of taking sample from the shop of the appellants, also deposed that the bags of fertilizers found in possession of the appellants, were machine stitched. Therefore, it is clear that the bags of fertilizer, found by the Chief Agricultural Officer and his party had been received by the appellants in their original form without any inter meddling or tampering. If this is the case, it cannot be said that the accused had any culpable mental state for committing any offence either under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act or under the provisions of Fertilizers Control Order. If there is any defect, in the manufacturing process and the bags were intact as supplied by the National Fertilizers Ltd. to the appellants shop, it cannot be said that the accused were responsible for any substandard in the fertilizer. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to have an order of acquittal in their favour.