M/s Prism Crop Science.LTD v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: SUREPALLI NANDA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-06. M/s Prism Crop Science.LTD v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
132521 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA wRlT PETITION NO: 10131 OF 2026 Between: Mis Prism Crop Science. LTD, Rep. by its Legal Assistant, Venumuddala Bharath Kumar, Office at Plot. No. 27 and 29B,4th floor, Ragavendra Herbals, Prashanth Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad -70. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Director of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Government of Telangana. 3. Union of lndia, N/inistry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhawan, Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. .....
RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Wdt of lvlandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent No. 1 and 2 in not integrating the bio-stimulants and their formulations, as approved and notified by Central Government under the FCO, into the Online License Management System as illegal and arbitrary and, declaring the inactions of the Respondent No. 3 in not disposing the applications for inclusion of specifications of bio-stimulants in Schedule Vl and extending the validity period of provisional registrations for bio-stimulants thereby effectively prohibiting manufacturers and importers from manufacturing, importing, storing and selling such bio-stimulants being ille 1 al, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and prejudicial the rights rf the Petitioners. |. A.
NO:1 OF 2026 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunr ,tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be, leased to permit the Petitioner to sell and liquidate their bio-stimulant inventc l lhat was IaMully manufactured and distributed prior to enforcement of nev, regulatrons i. e. , on 16. 06. 2025, thereby preventing the Petitioners from significan: 'inancial hardship as well as the wastage of viable agricultural inputs already in the r t pply chain. i. A. NO:2 OF 2026 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurr ;tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.
1 and 2 to expeditiously integrate all the b c -stimulants and their formulations, as approved and notified by the Central Goverrrr rent under the FCO, into the Online License Management System (OLMS) l ereby enabling the manufacturers of the said within the State of relangana to st t mit their applications for manufacturing licenses. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K. SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. l & 2 : AGP FOR COOpEt ATION Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 : SRI N. BHUJANGA RA() DEpUTy SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER -a-- IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE MRS. ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No. 1O13I OF 2026 DATE: O6. 04. 2O26 Between : M/s. Prism Crop Science. LTD, Rep. by its Legal Assistant, Venumuddala Bharath Kumar, Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture & Cooperation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ...
Respondents ORDER Heard Sri K. Sridhar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. l and 2 and Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3. s N,l \V F No. 10L3I of 2026 - 2. The oetitioner a proached the Cot rt seekinq Draver as under: "... to issue Writ of Mandamus decl:-ing the inaction of Respondent No. 1 and 2 in not in egrating the bio-stimulants and their formulations, as. pproved and notified by Central Government under he FCO, into the Online License lYanagement System rs illegal and arbitrary and; declaring the inactior: of the Respondent No.
3 in not disposing the applrr:i tions for inclusion of specifications of bio-stimulants ir ;chedule VI and extending the validity period ot p ovisional registrations for bio-stimulants thereby e fectively prohibiting manufacturers and importr:r ; from manufacturing, importing, storing and sellin_c ;uch bio-stimulants being illegal, arbitrary and in v r lation of principles of natural justice and prejudicial th€ rights of the Petitioners and pass such other order or rrders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper ir ,he facts and circumstances of the case..... " 3. The case of the Detitioner i brie I as oer the averment made in the affida vit filed bv tl e oetitioner in suDDort Of the Dresent Writ Petition is a ; under:- i) The Petitioner is engaged in manufacturi rg and selling agricultural bio-stimulants, which were broug 1t under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 through a noti ication dated SN,] W. P. No. 10131 of 2026 23. 02.
2021 introducing provisional and permanent registration. ii) The Petitioner complied with all requirements and operated under valid provisional registration while applying For permanent approval, however, its application remains pending. iii) Subsequently, by notification dated 18. 03. 2025, the Government restricted the sale of provisionally registered products beyond 16. 06. 2025 without providing a proper transition mechanism, rendering existing lawful products unsellable. Further, the Respondents failed to integrate approved products into the OLMS or extend provisional registrations. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. PERUSED T E RECORD: A) The relevant oortion of the order of this Cou rt 1 . 11. 20 in W. P. 20 extracted hereunder: '4. Having regard to the submissions of the petitioners that the products which are in their custody S N,J w. ) ,lo.
tolll of 2026 -are stated to be manufactured during the val ci y of the license and the labeling on the products w: tld also specify the date of manufacture and further, it s stated that the products are with the distribu.. r rs, the respondents are directed to permit the pet. ili ,ners to sell such of the products and if it is found th; - any of the product which is up for sale in the marl r t and is beyond the period of license i. e.. it is not marL factured during the period of license, then the petitior:rs shall be liable for appropriate action in accordance rv th law. 5. Accordingly, the wflt petition is dls I rsed of. There shall be no order as to costs. " CUSSI ND CLUSI 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of t te petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present ,\ -it petition is squarely covered by the order of this -ourt dated 19. Ll. 2025 passed in W. p. No.
32026 of 2O2l; and hence, the petitioner in the present writ petition is al; I entitled for the same relief as extended to the 1 etitioner in W. P. No. 32026 of 2025. 5. Learn ed Assista nt Govern ent I leader for Stam DS and R istration aooeari no onl r_:half of the res ndent Nos . 1 and 2 and learned DerI ttv Sol icitor General of fndEl appea rinq on behalf o I respondent SN,J w. P. No. 10131 of 2026 No. 3 do not disoute the said su b m rss ion made bv the learned counsel aDoearinq on behalf of the petitioner. 6. TAKING INTO CONSTDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, c) The order of this Court dated 19. 11. 2025 passed in W. P. No.
32O26 ot 2O25 (referred to and extracted above), d) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the present order, The writ oe ition is disoosed of in rms of the order of this Court dated 1 9 . 11. 2O25 oassed in W. P. No. 32O26 ot 2lJ25. The resoondents are directed SN,I \V r \o. t01l! of 2026 -to Dermit the petitioner to se ll such of t products ! e and if it is found that anv of the oroduct I rrhich is uo for sa le in the market and is bevond ttr oeriod of ! icense i. e. , it is not manufactu red durinq t I e oeriod of license, then the oetitioner shall be liabl for a Dorooraate action in accorda n ce to ! aw. _ f here shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendint in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SO/. A I REENIVASA REOOY .. -. - ASS ISTANT REGIS { //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Coope ati [) rpartment, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad 2.
The Director of Agriculture, Department of cJ ture, Government of &', Telangana. 3. The Union of lndia, Ministry of Agriculture and Farme r; Welfare, Department : of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhawan. ajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. 4. Two CCs to GP FOR COOPERATION, High Court for 1 re State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. One CC to SRI K. SRIDHAR RAO, Advocate IOPUCI 6. One CC to SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOt lIITOR GENERAL OF lNDIA, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies SA TKS ffi) C. C. TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 0610412026 z= - (:'Y r) :el AIE z- () ? s6 ! t' u lPn 1 * t C, ORDER WP. No. 10131 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE W. P WITHOUT COSTS. O'{{s
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.