M/s. Nakul Agritech India Private Limited v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-07. M/s. Nakul Agritech India Private Limited v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) IVONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 22140 OF 2020 Between: It//s. Nakul Agritech lndia Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Partner, A. Umesh Kumar, Sio. A. Gurumurthy, aged-2s years R/o. D. No. 2-2-1BOl17lF11 , B. K. Nagar, Bagh Amberpet, 25 years, R/o. D. No. Hyderabad - 500 013, Telangana State. Factory and Office at. 2-4-123l46, Swaroopnagar, Uppal (V and T), Hyderabad -500 039, lt4edcha l-lVa lkajgiri District, Telangana State. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operation Dept. ,Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, State of Telangana, Opp. L. B. Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ...
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of N,4andamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in interfering with manufacturing, sale and distribution of bio-products of petitioner-Firm, viz. , Shine Plus, N-Gyme, N-777, N-Spot, Paddy Care, N-[Vlax Plus, Gerilla, Arjun, All-Round, lmpartment, lmprovement, Cotton Fair, Flash, 3 Stars, Vajram, Uthej, Shanmukh, Yodha, Surgical, lt/ultistar, Sanjivani, Arrow, Chemmak, All Out, Clean Up, All Clear, Power Zyme, Finisher, Gladiator, Punch-Power, Punch, Secure, Humi Plus, Litany, Aspen, Attack, NeePower, Rise and Amino Gold, by issuing Memo No. PP. l1(1)208512005, dated 21-01-2006 and Letter No. PP.
ll(1)2085/2005, dated 21-01-2006 as being illegal, arbitrary, u ncon stitutro nal and without and further direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere with in any manner in manufacturing, sale and distribution of bio-products including from the licensed premises of the d ea lers/stock ists under the lnsecticides Act, 1968 and the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act, 1985. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere with manufacturing, sale and distribution of bio-products of petitioner-Firm, viz.
, Shine Plus, N-Gyme, N-777, N-Spot, Paddy Care, N-Max Plus, Gerilla, Arjun, All-Round, lmpa(ment, lmprovement, Cotton Fair, FIash, 3 Stars, Vajram, Uthej, Shanmukh, Yodha, Surgical, lvlultistar, Sanjivani, Arrow, Chemmak, All Out, Clean Up, All Clear, Power Zyme, Finisher, Gladiator, Punch-Power, Punch, Secure, Humi Plus, Litany, Aspen, Attack, Nee Power, Rise & Amino Gold, including from the licensed premises of the dealers, stockists, under the lnsecticides Act, 1968 and the Fertilizers Control (order) Act, 1985, pending disposal of the above Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. B. V. APARNA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following:ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No. 2214O of 2O2O OIiDtrIl Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for the respondents.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the common order passed by this Court in W. P. No. 25293 of 2014 and batch, dated 10. O7. 2015 as modified b1, the Division Bench in W. A. Nos. l122 and 1136 of 2016, dated 03. 11. 2016. Follou,ing the above orders, this Writ Petition is disposed ol in terms of the said orders. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this u'rit petition, shall stand closed. SD/. K. SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGIST R //TRUE COPY// sEcTlo OFFICER To, 1. The Principal secretary, Agriculture and co-operation Dept. , State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. iG iomin ssioner and Director of Agriculture, State of Telangana, Opp L'B' State. Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana 3. One CC to M/s. B. V. Apaina Lakshmi, Advocate [OPUC] the State of - Telangana l] 4. Two CCs to GP for Agriculture, High Court for IOU 5.
Two CD CoPies. *iih- i;ty or oroer dated 03/1 I t2O16 in wA. No. 1 122 and 1 1 36 of 201 6. ) ijr"ig PIV "N. (^"':--- \- HIGH COURT DATED:0711212020 ORDER HE s WP. No. 22140 of 2020 1 T4 ( (J o sll0ff2B0 \, ,r( { * 0r. )f-r. o Disposing of the WP Without costs. ! \V e--o? tsA '1 --)r n \{* HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATIIAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA Writ Apoeal Nos. 1122 and 1136 of2O16 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Honble the Acting Chief Justice Ranesh Ranganathan) While elaborate submissions are made both by the Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing on behall of the appellants and Sri S.
Niranjan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the responden t-u,rit petitioncrs, both of them u,ould agree that the questions u,hich necessitate examination are (i) u'hether, bv u/ay of the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition, the appellants can prohibit sale of bio-products in shops licensed to stock and se11 insecticides; (ii) r,l,hether the authorities are empo\\'ered to classily all bio-products as insecticides; and (iii) '"r,hether the guidelines, stipulated in the order under appeal, would preclude the authorities from exercising their powers under the Insecticides Act, 1968 ("the Act" for short) and the Rules made thereunder. As has been rightly held by the Learned Single Judge, the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India can only be restricted in accordance with Article 1 9 (6) thereof.
While the Act requires a licence to be obtained for storing and selling insecticides, no provision, either in the Act or the Rules made thereunder, has been brought to our notice u'hich prohibit a licensee from selling other products, in addition to insecticides, in the very same premises. The impugned memo, whereby dealers were prohibited from stocking, exhibiting and selling bio-products not covered under the Act, from the premises for which a license has been granted under the Act and the Rules, is not authorised either by any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The fact, however, remains that though the guidelines, in the order under appeal, have been stipulated in the larger public interest of protecting farmers, some of the conditions prescribed therein appear to run contrary to the provisions of the Act.
As the Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture has rightly pointed out Clause 6 of the guidelines, ll,hich requires a report from the concerned Iaboratory to bc obtained not later than a u,eek from the date of collection of the sample, does appear to lall foul of the time limit of one month specified in Section 21(1)(d) of the Act. Likewise Clause 7, which requires credible information to form the basis of collection of a sample, may well be construed as restricting the power, conferred under Section 21(1)(d) of the Act, on the Insecticide Inspector to withhold stocks if he has reason to believe that insecticides are being distributed, sold or used in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. While we are in complete agreement with the submission of Sri S.
Niranjan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner, that there cannot be an omnibus categorisation, of all bio-products as insecticides, for the purpose of taking action under the Act, the grounds on u,hich the Insecticide lnspector has reason to believe, that insecticides arc being sold in contravention ol the provisions ol the Act and thc Rules, would depend upon the facts of each case, and cannot bc circumscribed by way of guidelines issued by this Court. The guidelines prescribed, in the order under appeal, can only supplement and not supplant the law, and would remain in force only till appropriate legislation - either plenary or subordinate - is made in this regard.
Suffice it, while making it clear that there cannot be an omnibus categorisation ol a1l bio-products as insecticides for taking action against the dealers of those goods, to also make it clear that the guidelines, prescribed in the order under appeal, shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the powers conferred on the concerned authorities under the Act and the Rules. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on q,hether or not any of these bio-products are insecticides, as these are matters lvhich the authorities concerned are required to examine in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules made thereunder, and the guidelines stipulated in the order under appeal. The order under appeal is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove, and the Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J Datc:03. 11. 2016 cs
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.