Allowed

M/s. Kaveri Seed Company Ltd. v. The Commissioner and Director Agriculture

Telangana HC10 Dec 2007WP/26027/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was admitted and disposed of with directions to the respondent Director of Agriculture to analyze petitioner's bio-products. The court directed that if products match Schedule III descriptions, a license is required; otherwise, no regime applies. Petitioner was allowed to maintain status quo pending results.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to analyze samples within 4 weeks; status quo maintained pending results; petitioner may continue dealing unless products match Schedule III descriptions.

M/s. Kaveri Seed Company Ltd. Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN.

¶4

P R E S E N T

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶6

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 2 6 0 2 7 of 2007

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Kaveri Seed Co.Ltd. … Petitioner Versus The Commisioner & Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad. … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP for AGRICULTURE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO. 26027 OF 2007 ORDER:

¶10

This writ petition is coming up for admission.

¶11

2. Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture,

¶12

takes notice on 06-12-2006 to get instructions and also to bring to the notice of this Court the subsequent facts if any.

¶13

3. Heard Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel

¶14

representing the petitioner.

¶15

4. The writ petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus declaring action of the respondent in interfering with the manufacturing and sale of the petitioner’s Bio-Products

¶16

by issuing Memo No. PP.II(I)2085/2005 dated 21.01.2006 and the consequential letter No. PP.II(I)/2085/2005 dated 21.01.2006 thereby restricting

¶17

the sale of bio-products from the licensed premises of the petitioner herein as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondent not to interfere with in any manner the

¶18

manufacture, sale and distribution of the petitioner’s bioproducts including from the licensed premises of the dealers/stockists under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act, 1985 and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶19

5. Several factual details had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. Reliance is also placed on decisions of this court in WP No. 8207/2006 & Batch and also WP No. 17508/2007 & Batch. It is not in serious controversy that in similar cases, writ petitions are disposed of with certain directions. It is also stated that these matters were not carried by way of Writ Appeal. This court also disposed of Writ Petition Nos. 19226/2007, 19247/2007, 19265/2007, 19285/2007 and 19286 of 2007 on 11.09.2007 and W.P. No. 19551 of 2007 and Batch on 14.09.2007, in the light of the views expressed by this court in the aforesaid Batch cases,

¶20

referred to supra. In view of the same, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶21

a) It shall be open to the petitioner to submit a sample of 5 Kg. of each product dealt with by him, together with the corresponding literature, throwing light upon the manufacturing process as well as the contents thereof, to the respondent herein;

¶22

b) Within four (4) weeks from the date of submission of the samples and the literature by the petitioner, the respondent shall get the same analysed in a suitable laboratory and intimate the result of the analysis to the petitioner;

¶23

c) In case, the analysis reveals that the products dealt with by the petitioner answer the description of the products mentioned in Schedule – III to the Control Order, the petitioner shall be entitled to deal with the products, only after obtaining licence under the Control Order. On the other hand, if the result is found otherwise, the petitioner shall not be subjected to the regime under the Control Order or the Act; and

¶24

d) If the respondent fails to intimate the result of the analysis within four (4) weeks from the date of submission of the samples and the literature, it shall be open to the petitioner to deal with the products, notwithstanding the impugned letter and the memo, as long as the products are not insecticides or chemicals.

¶25

6. It is stated that the petitioner is running business. In

¶26

the light of the same, status quo obtaining as on today

¶27

be maintained till appropriate action, if any, is taken, in the light of directions specified supra. No order as to

¶28

costs.

¶29

JUSTICE P . S . NARAYANA . 10 /12/2007.

¶30

NB:

¶31

Furnish CC of the Order tomorrow. B/O. ISL.

M/s. Kaveri Seed Company Ltd. v. The Commissioner and Director Agriculture

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Kaveri Seed Company Ltd. v. The Commissioner and Director Agriculture

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/s.Green Myriad Agrarian Pvt. Ltd., rep.by its Director Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh

B.Suryakumari, Vs The State Bank of India, represented by its Authorised

Chundu Pullaiah S/o Seshaiah Vs The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)

Sri G. Vijayakumar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Sri Venkateshwara Stake Rice mill, a proprietory Vs Union of India represented by its Secretary

Jagati Rajalingam, Vs The Union of India, rep.by its General Manager