Ansupriya Satapathy Vs State of Odisha

the said cancellation order dated 29.09.2022 was confirmed by Appellate Authority (O.P.3), with further prayer to restore the LoA of the Petitioner firm.

¶16

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner firm namely, M/s. Glare Chemicals India, is a proprietorship situated at Biragobindapur, Sakhigopal, Puri. The said firm, being an authorized licensee/ dealer, is engaged in the process of manufacturing organic fertilizers in its own unit and supplies the same as a State Dealer of organic fertilizers since last sixteen years.

¶17

The Petitioner’s unit has also been duly issued with Memorandum of Acknowledgement, shortly, “MOA”, by the Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Empowerment, Odisha (O.P.1) as per provisions under Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) Control Order, 1985, shortly, “Control Order, 1985”, having valid ISO Certificate vide Annexure 1 & 2. The Petitioner’s firm has been producing and supplying Bio and Organic Fertilizers to the Government Departments under valid process for about one and half decades without any complaint from

¶18

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶19

Page 2 of 28

¶20

any quarter till date and except supplying to the Govt. departments through tender process, the Petitioner firm does not make any retail sale of the fertilizers.

¶21

On 11.09.2022, the Assistant Agriculture Officer, acting as Fertilizer Inspector, along with Tahsildar, Satyabadi and Police, came to the unit of the Petitioner and collected two samples each of Vermi Compost and raw materials for Vermi Compost and one sample of Bio Fertilizer for testing purpose, which was the left-over stock from the previous year’s supply orders of Bio fertilizer, kept in the premises for disposal and not for supply. Thereafter, the entire premises, consisting of the factory, laboratory, godown, workers’ quarters and two trucks used for transportation, being inside the premises, was sealed.

¶22

3. The action of sealing the premises was challenged in W.P. (C) No.24100 of 2022, which was disposed of by quashing the order of sealing of the unit, such action of the authority being arbitrary and in contravention of the Control Order, 1985 so also directing

¶23

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶24

Page 3 of 28

¶25

for opening of the seal. Further, an F.I.R against the Petitioner was also lodged by the B.A.O, which was challenged in CRLMC No.4082 of 2022 and interim stay of the GR Case has been granted by this Court.

¶26

On 15.09.2022, the Notified Authority-Cum-

¶27

Joint Director of Agriculture (O.P.2) issued an order suspending the LoA of the Petitioner firm and communicated the same through e-mail due to alleged attempt by the Petitioner to contravene clause 19(a)/19(c) of the Control Order, 1985. On 27.09.2022, a letter was issued to the Petitioner through e-mail for personal hearing, in terms of Clause 31 of the Control Order, 1985. Though the Petitioner appeared and filed his written statement regarding suspension of his LoA without any basis or test report of the samples, the Opposite Party No.2 cancelled the LoA of the Petitioner’s Firm vide order dated 29.09.2022, which was challenged by the Petitioner by preferring an appeal under clause 32 of the Control Order, 1985 before the Addl. Director of Agriculture (Extension)-Cum-Appellate Authority (O.P.3).

¶28

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶29

Page 4 of 28

¶30

The said Appeal was disposed of by the Opposite Party No.3 vide order dated 09.12.2022 upholding the order of cancellation of LoA dated 29.09.2022. Hence, this Writ Petition.

¶31

4. The said orders have been challenged on the grounds that the suspicion of non-conforming to the standard of the Control Order, 1985 for alleged mixing of charcoal and chemicals to manufacture organic fertilizer is proved to be baseless from the Laboratory Test Reports of the samples so also non-application of mind by the Appellate Authority for ignoring the reasons of cancellation, while upholding the cancellation of LoA on a different ground.

¶32

The observation of the Appellate Authority as to adulteration of the fertilizer, basing upon various factors such as absence of authentic records, documents, materials like stocking of bio-degradable waste/cow dung to be used in the process of vermi compost, is incomprehensible and is untenable. Further, the Laboratory Test Reports showing the samples to be of

¶33

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶34

Page 5 of 28

¶35

prescribed standard were already available to be verified, being so referred to in the appeal memo by the Petitioner, which would have rendered the cancellation order bad. However, the Appellate Authority deliberately referred to extraneous issues, which were not the reasons of cancellation of LoA, ignoring the allegation of suspicion that the fertilizers are not of prescribed standard, which was the sole reason of cancellation.

¶36

A further ground has been taken by the Petitioner that the entire action of the Opposite Parties from raid of its premises to uphold the cancellation of the LoA,

¶37

despite positive result of Laboratory Reports, gives rise to reasonable belief that the Opposite Parties are acting at the behest of some rival party in order to put the Petitioner out of business, as once the test results have shown the samples to be of prescribed standard, the order of cancellation becomes bad. Thus, the order passed in the Appeal so also the order of cancellation of the LoA of the Petitioner’s Unit, are liable to be quashed.

¶38

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶39

Page 6 of 28

¶40

In addition to the said grounds, it has also been pleaded that due to the illegal, arbitrary and mala fide action of the Opposite Parties, the supply of the fertilizers already manufactured in the unit of the Petitioner , in conformity with the standard prescribed in the Control Order, 1985, has been stopped, as a result of which a huge quantity of stock is left over and wasted, causing a huge financial loss to the Petitioner.

¶41

5. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the StateOpposite Party No.1 taking a stand therein that as per the Report of Chief District Agriculture Officer(CDAO), Puri, the bags printed with Vermi Compost (Soil Vita) and Bio Fertilizer ( Soil Gold) were being filled with Charcoal like substances or black coloured soil like substances by 15 to 20 labourers engaged in the site. Also, basing upon the observation and interrogation, the materials, being packed, were suspected to be spurious, for which the entire stock was seized.

¶42

It is the stand of the Opposite Party No.1 that though the Petitioner appeared before the Opposite Party

¶43

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶44

Page 7 of 28

¶45

No.2 for hearing along with his Legal Adviser, in pursuance of the order dated 27.09.2022, his clarification regarding cancellation of his LoA vide Order No. 32325 dated 29.09.2022 was not found to be satisfactory. Further, reasons for cancellation of LoA has also been communicated to the Petitioner by the Opposite Party No.2 vide Memo no.32774 dated 07.10.2022.

¶46

Further, it is the stand of the Opposite Party No.1 that the ingredients used in the raw materials used for preparation of Vermi Compost as well as Bio-Fertilizer had made a prima facie reason to believe that the BioFertilizers & Vermi-Compost manufactured is not of prescribed standard/ adulterated, which contravenes the Clause 19(a)/ 19(c) of the Control Order, 1985, for which the LoA of Petitioner’s firm has been cancelled immediately.

¶47

6. In response to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.1, a Rejoinder has also been filed by the Petitioner reiterating the stand taken in the Writ Petition so also stating therein that neither the Petitioner

¶48

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶49

Page 8 of 28

¶50

was aware about any alleged report of Chief District Agriculture Officer, Puri nor such report was referred to in the proceedings before Opposite Party No.2 or Opposite Party No.3.

¶51

It is also the stand of the Petitioner that the whole case against the Petitioner is based on prima facie assumptions and not on any evidence to substantiate the allegations of adulteration and/or of products, not meeting the prescribed standard.

¶52

Further, it is the stand of the Petitioner that

¶53

despite positive result of the Test Report, the Opposite Parties have not considered the same deliberately and cancelled the LoA of the Petitioner in a most unfair and arbitrary manner.

¶54

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the entire action of suspension and cancellation of LoA so also rejection of Appeal, being in violation of Clause 19, 31 and 32-A of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, are unjust, illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction, for which the Petitioner has been

¶55

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶56

Page 9 of 28

¶57

significantly victimized and is entitled to be granted adequate compensation for loss of business avocation for two years.

¶58

It was further submitted that the allegations made by the Opposite Parties against the Petitioner as to alleged attempt to manufacture adulterated fertilizer, having not been established in the Test Reports, as at Annexure-11 series, the entire action of the Opposite Parties should be declared as a mistake of fact and illegal and there is no such provision under the Control Order, 1985 to cancel LoA of a dealer for an attempt to manufacture adulterated fertilizer.

¶59

Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to test results on record, further submitted that the said Test Results, being in conformity with the specifications of Bio-Fertilizers (Para 4 of Part-A, and Para 1 of Part-B, in Schedule-III), question of any cancellation, much less suspension of the license of the Petitioner did not arise at all.

¶60

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶61

Page 10 of 28

¶62

Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner

¶63

further submitted that the crux of the matter in the present case is otherwise covered by the observation made by the coordinate Bench vide the judgment dated 25.11.2022 in W.P.(C) No.24100 of 2022 and it is a clear case, where the Petitioner has been significantly victimized by passing arbitrary, unilateral, unjust and invalid orders by the Opposite Parties, which is contrary to the provisions under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.

¶64

8. To substantiate his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Babu Verghese Vs. Bar Counsel of Kerala reported in AIR 1999 SC 1281 so also Judgment of this Court in Niranjan Tripathy Vs. State of Orissa & Others reported in 2012 (I) OJR 325.

¶65

9. In response to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, learned State Counsel, reiterating the stand taken in the Counter Affidavit so also drawing attention of this Court to the brief statement of reasons for cancellation of LoA of the

¶66

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶67

Page 11 of 28

¶68

Petitioner, as at Annexure-A/1, submitted that the ingredients used as raw materials for preparation of Vermi-Compost as well as Bio-Fertilizer had made prima facie reason to believe that the Bio-Fertilizers & VermiCompost manufactured by the Petitioner is not of prescribed standard or adulterated, which contravenes the Clause 19(a) /19(c) of the Control Order, 1985, for which the LoA issued in favour of the Petitioner has been rightly cancelled.

¶69

10. In view of the pleadings on record so also submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the following points emerge to be dealt in the present Writ Petition.

¶70

i) Whether the Notified Authority-Cum-Joint Director of Agriculture (O.P.2) was justified to cancel the LoA of the Petitioner firm?

¶71

ii) Whether the order passed by the Appellate Authority (O.P.3), thereby confirming the order passed by the Notified Authority, is legal and justified?

¶72

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶73

Page 12 of 28

¶74

11. As the said points are related, the same are dealt with and answered together for the sake of brevity and clarity. While dealing with the said points, first it would be apt to reproduce below the relevant paragraphs from the brief statement of the reasons for cancellation of LoA of the Petitioner, which forms part of one of the impugned orders dated 29.09.2022, as at Annexure-8.

¶75

“ 3. During the raid as per the way of packaging, observed by the enforcement officials and statements of Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, husband of the proprietor and statements of Sri Pinku Rajak, labour it was revealed that the dealer prepares the Biofertilizers as well as Vermicompost by combining Charcoal Powder and Chemicals as raw materials. 4. It is pertinent to mention that, Vermicompost is the result or the end product of earthworm digestion and decomposition of organic materials (typically plant & animal wastes). Similarly, Biofertilizer is a substance that contains living microorganisms which, promotes growth by increasing the supply or availability of primary nutrients to the host plant.

¶76

5. Hence, the way of packaging and raw materials used for preparation of Vermicompost as well as Bio fertilizers had made a reason on prima facie to believe that the Biofertilizers & Vermicompost, manufactured by the manufacturer is not of prescribed standard / adulterated, which contravenes the Clause 19 (a)/19 (c) of the aforementioned order.

¶77

6. Hence, as per the clause 28 (d) of the aforementioned order, the stock of the dealer has been seized by the enforcement officials. Also the

¶78

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶79

Page 13 of 28

¶80

sample of the above products has been drawn for sending to the Laboratory to confirm whether the fertilizers are as per FCO specification or not. The final test report from the lab is pending” .

¶81

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶82

12. Similarly, the Appellate Authority, while

¶83

passing the impugned order dated 09.12.2022, as at Annexure-10, observed as follows:

¶84

“Extract from the proceedings of Appeal held under Clause-32 of the Control Order, 1985.

¶85

It is found that, M/s. Glare Chemicals India, Satyabadi has not properly displayed and not able to produce the standard of the Vermi compost & Biofertilizer at the time of inspection to the team and keeping in view the quantum of business handled by the firm, the depot, go-down or other places used by the Firm was not properly explained to the team by the Glare Chemical which has created question on the specific standard of the fertilizer (Vermi compost & Bio-fertilizer).

¶86

More over any fertilizer which is deemed to be adulterated and if it contains any substances the addition of which is likely to be eliminated or decreased its nutrient content or make the fertilizer not confirming the specific standard deem to be considered adulterated in absence of sufficient evidence as it was observed during the visit of the team like absence of authentic records, documents, materials like stocking of bio degradable waste/ cow dung which could normally be used in the process of Vermi compost . Rather the question of mixing charcoal in vermin compost is a matter of

¶87

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶88

Page 14 of 28

¶89

question. So the FCO 19-C is uphold for cancellation of the LOA.

¶90

It is to be clearly mentioned here that, the sole purpose of issue of licence is to make available quality products to the farmers by the Govt. through issue of LOA, so that the manufacturer/ marketer will produce fertilizer as per the required section of FCO and distribute through their dealer network as per the provision of LOA. This will ensure that quality Inputs are made available to the public.

¶91

Considering the record and statement it is observed that, the statement of reason of cancellation of LOA could not be considered contradictory until all the records and documents are produced before the enquiry team for their verification.

¶92

As regards receipt of no complain from any quarter regarding the quality of Vermi compost /Bio-fertilizer, it is to be made clear that, in no circumstances Glare Chemicals India has produced any previous test report before the competent authority as proof their quality of the product. It is the prime duty of the company to prove its worth at manufacture, storage and marketing whether any complaint received or not.

¶93

As the appellant is the producer as well as marketing the same products, so without the authentic quality certificate it is not possible to allow such a huge amount of the products to be sold for the purpose of agricultural use under the FCO . Here the question of allowing 30 days is not permissible. Under the above circumstances the appellant authority is of the opinion that, steps for opening of the premises should be taken on expedious basis so that appellant could able to produce all the relevant documents, records information regarding their stock, place of stock, depot, go-down which are used by the firm for the purpose of storage,

¶94

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶95

Page 15 of 28

¶96

sale of the said vermin compost and Biofertilizer under question . The Fertilizer Inspector, Licensing Authority and CDAO, Puri are requested to take appropriate steps to open the unit which was sealed previously following codal procedure and disposed the case in a time bound process through the enquiry committee.

¶97

The appeal is disposed accordingly.”

¶98

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶99

13. Admittedly, the test results, all dated

¶100

10.10.2022, were communicated to the Petitioner on 11.10.2022, whereas the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner was disposed of vide proceedings dated 09.12.2022 i.e. much after availability of the test results regarding the samples collected from the Petitioner’s Firm. Though the Petitioner referred to those test results in her Memorandum of Appeal, which was preferred on 04.03.2023 on various grounds, including Ground No.E & J regarding analysis report, but the Appellate Authority

¶101

has not dealt with most of the grounds, including the grounds regarding the Laboratory Test Report. Ground No.E and relevant portion of Ground No.J of the Memorandum of Appeal, preferred under Clause-32-A(1)

¶102

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶103

Page 16 of 28

¶104

of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, being relevant, are

¶105

extracted below:

¶106

“ E. It is most humbly submitted that the standard of the raw materials, fertilizers etc. in question can only be ascertained after obtaining the analysis report from the accredited laboratory. But the Respondent has passed the impugned order prior to receiving the analysis report merely upon collection of samples and recording of statements.

¶107

Presently the analysis report is available with the authority as well as the Appellant (discussed supra). More particularly 4 out of 5 nos. of analysis reports relating to samples of raw materials and finished products of Vermicompost vide. Sample Code No.BioFert/SKL/1/2022-23, Bio-Fert/SKL/2/2022-23, Bio-Fert/SKL/3/2022-23 and BioFert/SKL/4/2022-23 (as indicated by inspector) were remarked by the testing laboratory as “The sample is according to FCO specifications based on above test result.” So there is no question of attempt to contravene and/or contravention of Clause 19(a)/19(c) of Order, 1985 by the Appellant and the raw materials and finished FCO, 1985 specification. (Copy of the relevant pages for Schedule-III of Order, 1985 is annexed hereto as Annexure-7)”

¶108

J. XXXXXX Whereas the analysis report of Bio Fertilizer i.e Soil Gold (PSB) vide. Sample Code No.Bio-Fert/SKL/5/2022-23 (as indicated by inspector) has been remarked by the testing laboratory as "The sample is not according to specification and fails in Contamination level & VCC parameters". Moreover at N.B which needs special attention it has been stated that "Expiry date is not mentioned upper margin of the packet received as per Schedule-III, Part-C, FCO, 1985". In reference to

¶109

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶110

Page 17 of 28

¶111

analysis report of this sample, the sample has passed all the parameters of FCO specification except Viable Cell Count and Contamination level. The sample is declared substandard only in Viable Cell Count which is reported as 1 x 10⁷ -cell/g of carrier material and presence of contamination at 10⁵ -dilution. It is most humbly submitted here that this sample reached expiry date at the time of sampling (also evident from statement at "N.B."), which is missed by the inspector while taking sample from the manufacturing unit. Inspite of expiry, sample was having 1x10⁷ counts in the laboratory test. This clearly indicates that the product was of good quality and meeting FCO, 1985 standards, when it was not expired. Slowly as expiry date passed, the contamination level in carrier material increases and viable cell decreased, which is still under tolerance limits prescribed in Part-B, Schedule-III, FCO, 1985. Further it clearly indicates that the product was good, users got good results of its application and there is no complaint of the product from the field also. The test report of the laboratory also support the claim of the Appellant, as even after expiry of the product the Viable Cell Count was present within tolerance limit as per Part-B, Schedule-III, deteriorated. However the Respondent has not taken these facts into consideration.”

¶112

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶113

14. That apart, paragraph Nos.18 & 19 of the Writ Petition, with regard to test results communicated to the Petitioner, being relevant, are also extracted below:-

¶114

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶115

Page 18 of 28

¶116

“18. That it is pertinent to submit that before the appeal was disposed of the test results of the samples taken during the raid were already available with the officials, and the petitioner and was in the knowledge of the Appellate Authority in as much as the petitioner had referred to the test results in the appeal memo itself.

¶117

The test results communicated to the petitioner by the Asst. Agriculture Officer, Satyabadi on 11.10.2022 showed that all four samples of vermicompost and its raw materials were as per standard prescribed which is contrary to the allegations on the basis of which the LOA was cancelled.

¶118

However, it may be clarified here that the single sample of bio-fertilizer (Solid Gold), passed all the parameters of FCO specification except viable cell count and contamination level. As mentioned earlier this product was left over from the previous year supply and was past the expiry date and was kept for disposal. This sample should not have been taken for testing in the first place, however, it may be noted that even after expiry this sample was having 1x10⁷ counts in the laboratory test which indicates that the product before expiry was of good quality and meeting the FCO standard.

¶119

(Copies of sample test results are annexed hereto as Annexure-11 Series)

¶120

19. That the order of cancellation of LOA by O.P No.2 is not sustainable for the reason that the sole ground of suspicion of non-conforming to the FCO standard for alleged mixing of charcoal and chemicals in organic fertilizer is proved to be totally baseless by the laboratory test reports of the samples.”

¶121

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶122

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶123

Page 19 of 28

¶124

15. However, in response to the said averments made in the Writ Petition, in the Counter, the said averments made in the Writ Petition have not been dealt with or denied. Rather, in para-6 of the Counter, it has been stated that as per the report of the Chief District Agriculture Officer, CDAO, the materials being packed, were suspected to be spurious. Hence, the entire stock was seized at that point of time.

¶125

16. In view of the allegations made by the authority concerned regarding adulteration, this Court is of the view that the decisive factor to determine the said allegation of adulteration is the test result/report. Despite taking a specific stand in the Memorandum of Appeal regarding the test result, as has been extracted above, the Appellate Authority admittedly did not deal with the said grounds and vaguely disposed of the said Appeal with the observation, as has been extracted above.

¶126

17. As there is an allegation of attempt to contravene the provisions under Clause-19(a) and 19(c) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, as has been mentioned

¶127

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶128

Page 20 of 28

¶129

vide one of the impugned orders dated 29.09.2022, as at

¶130

Annexure-8, it would be apt to reproduce below the said

¶131

clauses for ready reference:-

¶132

“19. Restriction on manufacture/import, sale and distribution of fertilisers

¶133

No person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf:-

¶134

(a) manufacture/import for sale, sell, offer for sale, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute any fertlliser which is not of prescribed standard ;

¶135

(b) manufacture/import for sale, sell, offer for sale, stock or exhibit for sale, or distribute any mixture of fertilisers, which is not of prescribed standard** (subject to such limits of permissible variation as may be specified from time to time by the Central Government) or special mixture of fertilisers which does not conform to the particulars specified In the certificate of manufacture granted to him under this Order in respect of such special mixture.

¶136

(c) sell, offer for sale, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute:-

¶137

(i) any fertiliser the container whereof is not packed and marked in the manner laid down In this Order

¶138

(ii) any fertiliser which is an [imitation of or] a substitute for another fertiliser under the name of which it is sold;

¶139

(iii) Any fertilizer which is adulterated;

¶140

Explanation:- A fertiliser shall be deemed to be adulterated, if it contains any substance the addition of which is likely to eliminate or decrease its nutrient contents or make the fertiliser not conforming to the prescribed standard.

¶141

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶142

Page 21 of 28

¶143

(iv) any fertiliser the label or container whereof bears the name of any individual firm or company purporting to be manufacturer/Importer of the fertiliser, which individual, firm or company is fictitious or does not exist.

¶144

(v) any fertiliser, the label or container whereof or anything accompanying therewith bears any statement which makes a false claim for the fertiliser of which is false or misleading in any material particular.

¶145

(vi) any substance as a fertiliser which substance is not, in fact, a fertiliser; or

¶146

(vii) any fertilizer without exhibiting the minimum guaranteed percentage by weight of plant nutrient.”

¶147

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶148

18. Admittedly, the Notified Authority under the

¶149

Control Order, 1985, while passing one of the impugned orders dated 29.09.2022, as at Annexure-8, vide which the LoA of the Petitioner stood cancelled with immediate effect, ordered so due to alleged attempt by the Petitioner to contravene Clause-19(a)/19(c) of the Control Order, 1985. The brief statement of reasons for cancellation of LoA attached to the said order dated 29.09.2022, also indicates as to preparation of bio-fertilizers as well as vermin-compost allegedly combining charcoal powder and

¶150

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶151

Page 22 of 28

¶152

chemical as raw materials and seizing of the stock of the dealer so also drawing sample of the said products for sending the same to the laboratory for confirmation to ascertain as to whether the fertilizers are as per FCO specification or not and pendency of final test report from the laboratory, as on the date of passing of the said order. 19. In the present case the Notified Authority followed the provisions under sub-clause (2) of Clause-31 of the Control Order, 1985, while suspending LoA of the Petitioner, which was followed by the impugned order of cancellation dated 29.09.2022 in terms of 1^st Proviso in sub-clause(2) of Clause 31 of the Control Order,1985, alleging there in an attempt made by the Petitioner to contravene the aforesaid provisions of the Control Order, 1985. The 2^nd Proviso under sub-clause (2) of Clause 31 of the Control Order, 1985 mandates, where no final order is passed within the period of fifteen days from the date of issue of order of suspension in terms of 1^st Proviso under the said Clause, the order of interim suspension shall be deemed to have been revoked. However, such

¶153

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶154

Page 23 of 28

¶155

deemed revocation of suspension order is without prejudice to any further action, which the Registering Authority or the Notified Authority or, as the case may be, the Controller may take against the affected person under sub-clause (1) of Clause 31. As it seems from the conduct of the Notified Authority, even though it observed in the statement of reasons for cancellation of LoA that the test results are awaiting, in order to avoid the deeming provision of vacation of suspension order, without waiting for the test results/reports, the said order was passed hurriedly merely on the allegation of an attempt to contravene certain provisions of the Control Order, 1985.

¶156

20. On perusal of Clause-31 of the Control Order, 1985, under which the Notified Authority/Registering Authority can suspend the authorization letter or certificate or debar the dealer from carrying on business of fertilizers, it is established that there is no such provision under the said Clause to do so on the ground of alleged attempt made by the dealer to contravene any of the provisions under the Control Order, 1985. Besides

¶157

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶158

Page 24 of 28

¶159

the said Clause, there is also no such provision under the Control Order, 1985, like the provisions under Indian Penal Code (repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita), prescribing legal action for an attempt made by the authorized dealer or the holder of the certificate of registration / certificate of manufacture under the Control Order, 1985 for committing an offence. Rather Clause-31 provides for suspension, cancellation or debarment only on contravention or non-fulfillment of provisions of the Control Order, 1985 or any terms and conditions of memorandum of intimation or certificate of registration or certificate of manufacture, as the case may be.

¶160

21. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Notified Authority was not justified to pass the impugned order dated 19.09.2022, thereby cancelling the LoA of the Petitioner on the ground of alleged attempt made by the Petitioner Firm to contravene Clause-19(a)/19(c) of the Control Order, 1985. This Court is of further view that, as the Notified Authority was of prima facie view of

¶161

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶162

Page 25 of 28

¶163

adulteration; such action of cancellation of LoA could only have been taken after receiving the test report, as the samples drawn by the Inspector were sent to the accredited laboratory in terms of Clause-29 of the Control Order, 1985 for testing.

¶164

22. In the present case, admittedly the Notified Authority has acted contrary to the provisions under the Control Order, 1985, as detailed above, which was erroneously confirmed by the Appellate Authority also. In view of the legal provisions under the Control Order, 1985, read with the reports of the test result of the accredited laboratory, as at Annexure-11 series, there being no finding or indication in the said reports as to use of charcoal powders and chemicals as raw materials to manufacture the Organic-Fertilizer and Bio-Fertilizer, as observed in the statement of reasons to cancel the

¶165

LoA, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 29.09.2022, as at Annexure-8, which was passed

¶166

with an observation that the Petitioner made an attempt

¶167

to contravene certain provisions under the Control Order,

¶168

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶169

Page 26 of 28

¶170

1985, so also the confirming order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, as at Annexure-10, where admittedly there is no such discussion about the test reports agitated vide Ground Nos.H & J in the Appeal Memo preferred by the Petitioner/Appellant, are bad and liable to be set aside. Both the points, as detailed above, are answered accordingly.

¶171

23. Accordingly, both the said orders passed by the Notified Authority, as at Annexure-8, so also the Appellate Authority, as at Annexure-10, are set aside and quashed. However, it is made clear that this order will not be a bar for the Notified Authority to act in terms of the request made by the Appellate Authority vide the concluding para of the impugned order dated 09.12.2022. It is made further clear that, while acting in terms of the said request, the authorities concerned shall take into consideration the test results of the accredited laboratory, as at Annexure-11 series, so also other grounds agitated by the Petitioner, by giving her chance of personal

¶172

W.P.(C) No.10634 of 2023

¶173

Page 27 of 28

¶174

hearing so also to be represented through her legal advisor.

¶175

24. The Notified Authority (O.P.2) is directed to restore the LoA of the Petitioner immediately, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order.

¶176

25. With the said observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to cost.

¶177

….….……………………

¶178

S.K. MISHRA, J.

¶179

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 10^th September, 2024/Kanhu

¶180

Signature Not Verified

¶181

Digitally Signed Signed by: KANHU BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck. Date: 10-Sep-2024 16:41:09