Dismissed

M/S Khalsa Agricultural Store, Malerkotla v. Director Agriculture, Punjab, Chd & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2012CWP/11431/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an agricultural store seeking to quash the cancellation of its insecticide licence. The Court held that the petitioner was not authorized to sell drugs manufactured by M/s Pooja Minerals Hapur and thus could not claim protection under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The cancellation of the petitioner's licence for selling insecticides was upheld.

M/S Khalsa Agricultural Store, Malerkotla Vs… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.W.P.No.11431 of 1994

¶3

Date of decision : 22.5.2012

¶4

M/s Khalsa Agricultural Store

¶5

....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Director, Agriculture Punjab and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present : Mr.S.P.Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for the respondents.

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶13

The petitioner has filed the instant petition impugning the orders Annexures P-5 and P-7 vide which his licence for selling insecticides has been cancelled.

¶14

This petition had earlier been disposed of by this Court on 8.8.1995 by placing reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Kishan Beej Bhandar v. Chief Agricultural Officer and another , 1992 Current Criminal Reports 768 .

¶15

The petition having been allowed in favour of the petitioner the order was assailed by the respondent-State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.12596 of 1996 which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to this Court for decision afresh by keeping in view the question raised therein that whether the

¶16

C.W.P.No.11431 of 1994 -2-

¶17

defences under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') would be available to the concerned licensee (petitioner) in view of the stand of the respondents that the petitioner was not empowered to deal with the insecticide the sample of which was taken from his shop. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, said that all these factual aspects have not been gone into by this Court and, therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded back for appropriate decision.

¶18

While making his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated his stand that under Section 30(3) of the Act he was protected, as he being a retailer was not responsible for misbranding of the insecticide or the same being found deficient in essential contents.

¶19

The respondents have refuted the stand of the petitioner and have said that the reason for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner was that he had violated the specified terms of his licence as he was not authorised to sell the drugs manufactured by M/s Pooja Minerals Hapur which was also found to be deficient in contents.

¶20

The attention of this Court has been invited to Annexure R-1, which is licence of the petitioner, authorising him to sell the chemicals manufactured by the firms which have been mentioned therein. A perusal of the same fortifies the stand of the respondents that the petitioner was not authorised to sell the drugs manufactured by M/s Pooja Minerals Hapur and, therefore, the allegations against the petitioner stood established, as it is not denied that he was in

¶21

C.W.P.No.11431 of 1994 -3-

¶22

possession of the drugs manufactured by the said firm. Evidently, the question of raising a defence under Section 30(3) of the Act would not be available to the petitioner because of the clear language of the statute which offers no protection to a conduct such as that of the petitioner. For the purpose of reference Section 30(3) of the Act is extracted herebelow :-

¶23

“ Defence which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under this Act .--

¶24

(1) .......

¶25

(2) .......

¶26

(3) A person not being an importer or a manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of any provision of this Act, if he proves --

¶27

(a) that he acquired the insecticide from an importer or a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof;

¶28

(b) that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the insecticide in any way contravened any provision of this Act; and

¶29

(c) that the insecticide, while in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it.”

¶30

For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the writ

¶31

C.W.P.No.11431 of 1994 -4-

¶32

petition is misconceived and is, therefore, dismissed.

¶33

22.5.2012 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss

M/S Khalsa Agricultural Store, Malerkotla v. Director Agriculture, Punjab, Chd & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Khalsa Agricultural Store, Malerkotla v. Director Agriculture, Punjab, Chd & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Satwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Amarjit Singh Johal Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

M/S Aman Securities and Detectives Vs Punjab State Coop, Milk Producers and Anr.

Prem Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Mohan Lal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.