High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging interference with bio-product sales by relying on a previous order directing respondents to follow specific Supreme Court and Central Government guidelines regarding biostimulants.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 4568 OF 2024
Between:
Apex Crop Genetics, Rep. by its Proprietor, Smt. V. Rajitha W/o. V. Sreenivasa Chary Aged 38 years, R/o. D.No.5-60/79, RoadNo.2, Near BathukammaPark,Old Alwal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District-500 010, Telangana State. Factory and Office at Plot No. 412/Part, Subash Nagar, Near Last Bus Stop, Quthbullapur Mandal, Hyderabad-500 055, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State. Sale point in AP is at D.No.3-01, Chapalamadugu, Kindi Bazar, Chennampall (V), Pullala Cheruvu (M), Prakasam District-523 328, Andhra Pradesh State.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2"'‘ Respondent in interfering with sale and distribution of Bio-products/Bio-Stimulants of petitioner-Firm, viz., Buie Bell, Kavacham, Trool, Pettia, Exponent, Jamathara, Thar, Sarkar, Introvert, Achillea, Boxer Super, Red Gold, Oelinder, Troll, Bhandan, Raksha and Goda, by issuing Memo No. PP.II( 1)2085/2005, dated 21-01-2006 and Letter No. PP.11(1)2085/2005, dated 21-01-2006 and in the absence of Notification prescribing standards and not included in Schedule-Vlas being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and direct the 2"^^ respondent not to interfere with in any manner in selling and distribution of Bio-products/Bio-Stimulants including from the licensed premises of the dealers/stockists under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act, 1985.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2’'^ respondent not to interfere with sale and distribution of Bio
products/Bio-Stimulants of petitioner-Firm, viz., Buie Bell, Kavacham, Trool, Pettia, Exponent, Jamathara, Thar, Sarkar, Introvert, Achillea, Boxer Super, Red Gold, Oelinder, Troll, Bhandan, Raksha and Goda, includingfromthelicensed premises of the dealers, stockists, under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Fertilizers Control (order) Act, 1985, pending disposal of the above Writ petition.
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHCO10083772024 THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
(Special Original Jurisdiction) [ 3333 WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF ] FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
P-
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 4568 OF 2024
Between:
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in interfering with sale and distribution of Bio-products/Bio-Stimulantsof petitioner-Firm, viz., Buie Bell, Kavacham, Trool, Pettla, Exponent, Jamathara, Thar, Sarkar, Introvert, Achillea, Boxer Super, Red Gold, Oelinder, Troll, Bhandan, Raksha and Goda, by issuing Memo No. PP.II(l)2085/2005, dated 21-01-2006 and Letter No. PP.II(l)2085/2005, dated 21-01-2006 and in the absence of Notification prescribing standards and not included in Schedule-Vl, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere with in any manner in selling and distribution of Bio-products/Bio-Stimulants including from the licensed premises of the dealers/stockistsunder the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act, 1985....
I
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. B V APARNA LAKSHMI
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR AGRICULTURE (AP)
The Court made the following:
Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for respondents submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.13169 of 2021, dated 26.07.2021. 2. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P No. 13169 of 2021, dated 26.07.2021, directing the respondents to follow the provisions and the guidelines stipulated in SO No.882(E), dated 23.02.2021 and SO No.2333, dated 14.06.2021, while dealing with the products of the petitioner-firm and interfering with the activity of the petitioner-firm, including the licensed premises of the petitioner-firm and its dealers/stockiests, who are dealing with the subject products. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
The Registry is directed to enclose a copy of the order in W.P No. 13169 of 2021, dated 26.07.2021, to this order.
To.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY\REGISTR^ :-k. SECTI OFFICER
(Along with copy of the order dated.26 07 2021 in W.P. No.13169 of 2021 enclosed herewith)* Cnr g> -aV
HIGH COURT
DATED:21/02/2024
♦
f
<br>^ ^ V y ■fc-
4 V V
ORDER
WP.No.4568 of 2024
DISPOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Writ Petition No.l3169 of 2021
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the production, sale and distribution of petitioner's BioProducts, as illegal and arbitrary.
The case of the petitioner firm is that it has engaged in manufacture. sale and distribution of Bio-Products such as; James bond. More 69, Vinzyme-L, Vinzyme-G, Khazana, Supreme, Warrior, Victor, Victore Plus, Vajhara, Vijaya-99, Jeel-9, Vibha, Vishist, Dandi, Booster, Medal, Vijaya-999 and V. Prom 5, Vijaya CMS, Vejatha, CMS Grunavals, Vasudhaa, Dharani, Viraat CMS, Tejal, Bhairav, Dhaanya, Dharmavira, Dhaathri, Dhaarmik, Tejaswi, Sonakshi, Dhanishta, Daksh, Dhamman, Ekachakra, Ekaveera, Ekaveera plus, Garjan, Gandeer, Garuda, Jaagruth, Jaguar, Jamindar, Janzeer, Jeevan Mitra, Kanchan, Keerthi, Kingzymme (Liquit), Kingzymme (Granules), Mokshaa, Mothi, Pasidi-6, Terminator-11, Terminator Plus, Tejas, Tejaswi, Temper, Saviour, Tejasplus, Heera, Sona, Eesha, Bhamini, Mohini, Bhaadra, Bahula, Janani, Jago, Bhaagya, Gayathree, Jeett, Ekalavya, Tejas Grand, Avenger, VAM-Gold Viswajit, Tejas Plus Extra, Secure, Gardian, Garjan, Visthaar, Prudhavi; the said products are called as plant growth promoters and Bio Organic Fertilizers, as the said products are manufactured without usage of any toxic chemicals unlike the regular pesticides and insecticides; they are naturally derived and used as crop stimulants and grovrth promoters and hence the said products will not fall under the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 or Insecticides Act, 1968; as the products of the petitioner do not fall under theambit of either the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 or Insecticides Act,thesamecan be sold
2
without there being any marketing permission under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and Insecticides Act; that in spite of the same, the respondents are obstructing the sale of the products; there is no prohibition on sticking on dealers who were granted a license under Section 13 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 10 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and the District Agricultural Officers of Kurnool, Guntur, Krishna, Chittoor, Anantapur, East Godavari, West Godavari and Kadapa are interfering and obstructing the business of the petitioner without assigning any reasons; the similarly situated firms filed W.P.No.25293 of 2014 and batch and after disposal of the said Writ Petition and batch on 10.07.2015, the matters were carried before the Division Bench by way of Writ Appeal Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016 and the said order was confirmed with certain modifications; hence, the Writ Petition. Writ Petition No.25293 of 2014 and batch were filed challenging the action of the respondents therein in interfering withthemanufactureandsale of bio-products by issuing a memo dated 21.01.2006. The sum and substance of the said memo is that certain productsarenotcoveredunder the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the stocking/exhibiting for sale from the licensed premises is not permitted. Writ Petition No.25293 of 2014 and batch were filed on the ground that when the activity is not covered by the provisions of the Act, the respondent authorities cannot interfere with the activities of the petitioners therein and the said Writ Petitions were disposed of with the following directions. "19. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, all these writ petitions are disposedofwith the following directions: i) The petitioners shall not deal with bio-products without maintaining proper packing and marking of the product. The packing of bio-products shall containthe ingredients included in the product, analytical
3
4
the authority can pass appropriate orders under the provisions of the said enactments. Vi) The report from the concerned Laboratory shall be obtained as expeditiously as possible, preferably not later than a week from the date of collection of the sample and till such time, the concerned authoritycan withhold manufacture and sale of bio-product. Against the order passed by the authority who collected sample, the aggrieved party can file an appeal to the higher authority as provided in the above provisions if so advised.
vii) The collection of samples and the process of passing order shall not be resorted to routinely but shouldbe on credible information that the product is causing damage to the public agriculture activity and on prima facie satisfaction of such information.
viii) The respondents shall not violate the law and resort to unnecessary harassment of the manufacturers or dealers in a routine manner. ix) In case of violation of the above directions, it is open to the petitioners to bring it to the notice of the higher authorities of the action of the officers violating the directions, and the higher authority to the authority interfering with the activity of the petitioners shall dispose of the representations with utmost expediency and not later than ten days from the receipt thereof.
Challenging the said order, the State Government has preferred Writ
Appeals bearing W.A.Nos.ll22 and 1136 of 2016, which were disposed of by the Division Bench of the combined High Court on 03.11.2016, observing as follows.
"As has been rightly held by the Learned Single Judge, the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India can only be restricted in accordance with Article 19(6) thereof. While the Act requires a licence to be obtained for storing and selling insecticides,no
5
provision, either in the Act or the Rules made thereunder,has been brought to our notice which 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 Actorthe 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 theconditions prescribed therein appear to run contrary to the provisionsof the Act. As the Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture has rightly pointed out Clause 6 of the guidelines, which requires a report from the concerned laboratory to be obtained not later than a week from the date of collection of the sample, does appear to fall foul of the time limitofone month specified in Section 21(l)(d) of the Act. Likewise Clause 7, which requires credible information to formthebasis of collection of a sample, may well be construed as restricting the power, conferred under Section 21(l)(d) of the Act, on the Insecticide Inspector to withhold stocks if hehasreasonto believe that insecticides are being distributed, soldorused in contravention of the provisions of the Act and theRulesmade thereunder.
While we are in complete agreement with the submission of Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, Learned SeniorCounsel 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 which the Insecticide Inspector hasreasonto believe, that insecticides are being sold in contraventionofthe provisions of the Act and the Rules, would depend uponthe facts of each case, and cannot be circumscribed by way of guidelines issued by this Court. The guidelines prescribed, in the order under appeal, can only supplement and not supplant
6
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 therecannotbe an omnibus categorisation of all bio-products as insecticides for taking action against the dealers of those goods,toalso make it clear that the guidelines, prescribed in theorderunder 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 whether or not any of these bio-productsare insecticides, as these are matters which 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 disposedof accordingly. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs."
Counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent stating, inter alia, that the petitioner has not submitted any bio-efficacy trial reports and results pertaining to non-toxicity and that the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India has issued a Gazette notification vide SO No.882(E), dated 23.02.2021, under Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Amendment Order, 2021 duly including the Biostimulants in Schedule VI of Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985. The Division Bench of the combined High Court observed that the guidelines prescribed in the order under appeal would remain in force only till appropriate legislation - either plenary or subordinate- is made in that regard and pursuant to the said Division Bench order and to regulate the manufacturing and marketing of bio-products particularly with fake and bogus addresses and to prevent spurious products to the farmers the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.18, Agriculture & Cooperation (AGRI.III)
7
Department, dated 10.03.2017 and sub-clause (4) ofClause3ofthesaid SO No.882(E) reads as follows.
"(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this order, any person manufacturing a biostimulant as on the dateof publication of this order for which no standards havebeen specified, may, subject to making an application for grant of provisional registration under sub-clause (5), continue to manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, stock orexhibitsuch biostimulant for a period of two years from the date of publication of this order."
The said time limits were extended vide SO No.2333, dated 14.06.2021, which reads as follows. "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), the Central Government hereby makes the following order further to amend the Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985, namely:1. (1) This order may be called the Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Amendment Order, 2021. (2) It shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. 2. In the Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985,-
(i) In clause 20(c), in sub-clause (5), for the words "within a period of six months from the date of publicationof this order", the words, figure and letters "within 3P‘ March, 2022" shall be substituted,
(ii) In 'Form G-3, for the words, figures and letters "up to....day of August, 2022", the words, figures and letters "up to 22"*^ day of February, 2023" shall be substituted."
In view of the categorical extension of time limits in SO No.2333, dated 14.06.2021, the respondents are directed to follow the provisions and the guidelines stipulated in SO No.882(E), dated 23.02.2021 and SO No.2333,
dated 14.06.2021, while dealing with the products of the petitioner and interfering with the activity of the petitioner who is dealing with the subject products.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
KONGARA VI3AYA LAKSHMI, 3
Date:26.07.2021 Nsr
Apex Crop Genetics
State of Andhra Pradesh
Justice V. Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
