Allowed

M/S Pasura Crop Care Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Jan 2024WP/11347/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking a mandamus directing agricultural authorities to send a seized bio-product sample for second analysis under Section 24 of the Insecticides Act after re-analysis was requested but no order issued. Court allowed the petition, directing respondent No.3 to consider the request and pass an appropriate order within two months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 directed to consider Annexure-C request for re-analysis and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within two months

M/S Pasura Crop Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:3761 WP No. 11347 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 11347 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. PASURA CROP CARE PVT. LTD. HOUSE NO.9-1-87, 119/1, 410 AMSI EDEN SQUARE, ST. JOHN ROAD SECUNDERABAD-500003 TELANGANA STATE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE BY RAVI SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUNITHA GANGARAJU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIKAS SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEHI BENGALURU-560001

¶14

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE VIJAYPURA DISTRICT VIJAYPURA KARNATAKA STATE-586101

¶15

ASST. DIRRCTOR OF AGRICULTURE VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA-586101

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:3761 WP No. 11347 of 2020

¶18

INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR OFFICE OF THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577501

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ GODACHI, AGA)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TODIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO SEND THE SAMPLE NAMELY EXODUS DRAWN ON 25.8.2019 FROM THE PETITIONER OR HIS DEALER FOR SECOND ANALYSIS AS REQUIRED U/S 24(3)(4) OF THE INSECTICIDES ACT AS PER REQUEST LETTER DATED 20.1.2020 ANNEXURE-C.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents to send the samples of bio product namely exodus drawn on 25.08.2019 from the petitioner or his dealer for second analysis as required under Section 24(3)(4) of the Insecticides Act as per the request letter dated 20.01.2020 vide Annexure-C.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:3761 WP No. 11347 of 2020

¶26

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶27

The respondents issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 08.01.2020 calling upon the petitioner to submit a reply with regard to analysis report. The petitioner submitted a reply stating that the analysis report obtained by the respondents is not correct and accurate, since the same is done in Residue Lab at Raichur, therefore, request for re-analysis vide communication dated 20.01.2020 vide Annexure-C. The respondents without conducting the re-analysis of the samples, the respondent-authorities have issued a letter asking for the persons who are responsible for the manufacture and sale of products so as to initiate action against the company. The petitioner submitted a reply through his advocate stating that since he requested for re-analysis, the said re-analysis may be obtained at the earliest. Show cause notice was issued by the respondent contending that the proceedings shall be initiated against

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:3761 WP No. 11347 of 2020

¶30

the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the same has

¶31

filed this writ petition.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned

¶33

Additional Government Advocate for respondents.

¶34

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶35

submitted that the respondents will consider Annexure-C and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶36

His submission is placed on record.

¶37

The respondent issued show cause notice to the

¶38

petitioner as per Annexure-B. The petitioner submitted a reply and also requested for re-analysis before the proceedings. Further, the respondents have not passed any order on Annexure-C, as the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted if reasonable time is granted to the respondent, the respondent will consider Annexure-C and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In view of the submission made by the learned

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:3761 WP No. 11347 of 2020

¶41

Additional Government Advocate, I proceed to pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The writ petition is allowed.

¶44

Respondent No.3 is directed to consider Annexure-C and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶45

SD/JUDGE

¶46

SKS

M/S Pasura Crop Care Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pasura Crop Care Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

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

Similar cases

M Nagaraju Vs Srinivasa

Eramma Vs Sharifunissa

Anagha S Vs Karnataka State Law University

G Sreenivasa Murthy Vs Smt. Asha

Smt. Vijaya R Adapa Vs K Ramakrishna Adapa

Sri Shelhan Vs Karnataka State Bar Council