Allowed

Biofac Inputs Private Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary to the Govt. of Mah. in Agriculture Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jun 2024WP/4951/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

License to trade in agriculture seeds was cancelled by the Commissioner of Agriculture while the appeal before him challenged only a suspension order. The High Court held this transgressed jurisdiction, quashed the cancellation order and remitted the matter for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.2.2024 cancelling licence quashed; matter remitted to respondent no.2; no costs.

Biofac Inputs Private Ltd. vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1-wp4951-24.doc

¶2

vai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

Digitally signed VASANT by VASANT ANANDRAO ANANDRAO IDHOL IDHOL Date: 2024.06.12 19:37:13 +0530

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4951 OF 2024

¶7

Biofac Inputs Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Raghavacharyulu with Adv.Padmaja Gadiraju and Mr.Ganesh Shinde for the Petitioner.

¶9

Ms.Vrushali R. Raje, AGP for the State - Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 12TH JUNE, 2024.

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

AGP for the State. The petition questions the order dated

¶14

27.2.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Agriculture / respondent no.2 (page 56) by which the license of the petitioner to trade in agriculture seeds has been cancelled.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶16

proceedings before the Commissioner / respondent no.2 under

¶17

1/3

¶18

1-wp4951-24.doc

¶19

section 32-A of Fertiliser, (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985 were in the nature of an appeal, challenging the order of suspension of the license by Respondent no.3 dated 12.1.2024 (page 42) in view of which respondent no.2 would not have cancelled the license. It is also submitted that the proceedings before respondent no.3 are still pending considering which the respondent no.2 has transgressed the jurisdiction invoked.

¶20

Learned AGP though supports the impugned order, however, in all fairness submits that respondent no.2 could not have cancelled the license when the challenge was to the suspending of the license.

¶21

It it not in dispute that respondent no.3 has passed an order suspending the license which was the subject matter of challenge. It is therefore apparent that the jurisdiction to be exercised by respondent no.2 was restricted to examining the validity of the order impugned before him and not otherwise. In cancelling the license, it is thus apparent that respondent no.2 has transgressed the brief presented before him and therefore

¶22

2/3

¶23

1-wp4951-24.doc

¶24

committed the illegality. The impugned order dated 27.2.2024 passed by respondent no.2 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is therefore, remitted back to respondent no.2 to decide the challenge as raised before him in terms of the applicable law. The petition is therefore, allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.

¶25

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶26

3/3

Biofac Inputs Private Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary to the Govt. of Mah. in Agriculture Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biofac Inputs Private Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary to the Govt. of Mah. in Agriculture Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Peter C Bain by Lrs Sandra P Bain vs Yusuf Shaikh

Jyoti Kishan Gehi vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Anr.

Shital Dagadu Kauthekar and Anr. vs Niraj Ramesh Jariwala and Ors.

Shital Dagadu Kauthekar and Anr. vs Ravindra Dagadu Gaikwad and Ors.

M/S. Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. through Its Authorised vs Suyog Dilip Shinde and Ors.

Mahadev Bajirav Javalkar and Ors. vs Gramseak Grampanchayat and Ors.