Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) The Petitioner submits that the impugned order is ex facie illegal as far as direction restricting them to source Potassium Chloride only from Indian Potash Ltd. Thus, on the above raised issues among other grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned order.

http://www.judis.nic.in

4. Arguments raised on behalf of Petitioner:-

a) The learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the confiscation proceedings passed under Section 6-A of EC Act, 1955, dated 20.05.2011, shows that on behalf of Petitioner therein ie., Department viz., Fertilizer Inspector-cum-Agricultural Officer, Uzhavar Uthaviyagam, Karaikal, (1) Dr.R.Jayanthi, Fertilizer Inspector-cum-Agricultural Officer and (2) Officials of Agriculture Department, Karaikal, represented the matter and they put forth the grounds on which seizure was made and confiscation is proposed. Clause 27 A of the FCO provides for qualification for appointment of Fertilizer Inspector and the Fertilizer Inspector in the case on hand is not a qualified Officer to take samples from the Petitioner Company. As far as the qualifications viz, (i) Graduate in Agriculture or Science with Chemistry and (ii) Training or Experience in the quality control of fertilizers and working in the State or Central Department of Agriculture, the Petitioner by letter dated 25.08.2014 sought query to RTI seeking details of experience in quality control of fertilizer possessed by Tmt.R.Jayanthi as stipulated under Clause 27 A of FCO. The Information dated 07.10.2014 from the Additional Director of Agriculture cum Public Information Officer, Karaikal, is referred as follows:-

As per clause 23(1) of FCO, any fertilizer which does not confirm to the prescribed standard is referred to as "Non-standard fertilizer" as per FCO; in order to curb adulteration of fertilizer Potassium Chloride, the Fertilizer Control Order 1985 has fixed 60% K20 as minimum standard. The test results of both the sample also shown <60% K20, which does not mean that it is not a fertilizer but "Non standard fertilizer" as per the clause mentioned above.

13. In the absence of any special report or mahazar with regard to the procedure followed by the respondents for taking sample and without any documents put forth to substantiate the fact that it followed the mandatory provisions in taking sample of fertilizer on the one hand, and the test certificate which clearly indicates that the sample fails to meet the requirements of FCO and EC Act, in respect of Gr.I in respect of matter insoluble in water, sodium chloride, potassium chloride and magnessium and for Gr-2 in respect of sodium chloride and potassium chloride as per IS 4150-194 and the further test result given as addendum that the sample fails to meet the requirements of FCO and the ECT Act, 1955 in respect of moisture, clearly indicates that the sample is not according to specification given in FCO.

http://www.judis.nic.in

14. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, admittedly the samples were drawn randomly and the respondent had not followed the procedures as contemplated under FCO. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the samples were drawn as per the procedure set out in Schedule II Part A of FCO.

15. This court finds force in the above argument put forth by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner-company for the reason that the fertiliser is a component of chemicals and therefore, such a method is adopted to find out the true components of the samples and accordingly, such a mandatory procedure not followed as set out in FCO will go to the root of the issue and on the said ground, the impugned confiscation proceedings is liable to be quashed.