Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.7. The 1st respondent-District Magistrate, Karaikal, by Proceedings dated 15.11.2010, pointed out that seized samples were already analysed at Fertilizer Control Laboratory, Puducherry and the Regional Fertilizer Quality http://www.judis.nic.in control Laboratory, Chennai and both the laboratories confirmed that the seized samples were fertilizer grade Potassium Chloride. Further it is pointed out that in view of the High Court's observation that the District Collector/District Magistrate exercises the power of a statutory authority as per the Essential Commodities Act 1955 [hereinafter called as "EC Act"] and hence, as per the directions of the High Court, ordered the Petitioner- M/s.Karaikal Chlorates to show cause u/s.6-B of EC Act in person or by pleader as to why the seized Potassium Chloride should not be confiscated under Section 6-A of the EC Act, 1955.

http://www.judis.nic.in

(d) The learned senior counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner further submits that the 1st respondent in the course of hearing of confiscation proceeding, thought it fit to get the samples tested by a neutral laboratory viz., National Test House, Kolkatta, which agency, issued certificate of testing on 18.03.2011 in respect of sample which was tested vice verse the specifications contained in technical grade potassium chloride specification viz., IS 4150-1984; test report was given on 22.3.2011 in respect of testing of the sample vice versa Fertilizer Control Order specification and it was reported that the sample shall pass the test in respect of core chemical potassium chloride and hence, in paragraph 40 of the impugned order, the 1st respondent categorically held that the seized sample for testing is technical grade potassium chloride. Having held so, the 1st respondent however, pointed out that when the sample was tested for the parameters under the EC Act, the sample failed to meet the requirement in respect of moisture alone and gave a contrary finding in paragraph 41 that the seized sample sent for testing is an essential commodity. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the sampling has not been done as mandatorily required under Schedule II of the FCO and without any basis whatsoever random sample has been taken. Schedule II Part A 1 and 2 prescribes the method for preparing sample from the bagged material. The said method is a scientific method and that has not been followed by the http://www.judis.nic.in respondent in the present case. As such, the result obtained as if the sample does not satisfy moisture content and hence should be treated as a fertilizer, is not based on a proper sample drawn as per the schedule and hence, the impugned order is unsustainable.

8. Secondly, based on the seized sample, fertilizer analyst tested the same and the test results of National Test House, Kolkata, the District Collector in his confiscation proceedings, states that the core chemical is the most important component in a given chemical composition and that the core chemical of Potassium chloride for specification of Technical Grade Potassium Chloride is Kcl (Potassium Chloride itself). In the above test only Sodium Chloride fails in the test of Technical Grade Potassium Chloride. The rest of the components qualify for Grade-II Technical Grade Potassium Chloride while 5 components qualify for Grade-I. The core chemical i.e., Kcl (Potassium Chloride) qualifies for Technical Grade-II. Therefore, it is concluded that the seized sample sent for testing is Technical Grade Potassium Chloride. However, remarks of the National Test House is that the http://www.judis.nic.in sample fails to meet the requirements of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in respect of Moisture only.

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.