Disposed

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

Telangana HC7 Dec 2007WP/26125/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of a writ petition challenging interference with the petitioner's bio-products business. It directed the respondent to analyze product samples within four weeks or allow the petitioner to proceed if results are not furnished, maintaining status quo pending analysis.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with directions to submit samples for analysis; if unlicensed and analysis confirm Schedule-III nature, licence required; otherwise, relax restrictions. Status quo maintained.

M/s.Green Myriad Agrarian Pvt. Ltd., rep.by its… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN.

¶4

P R E S E N T

¶5

**THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA * * *** WRIT PETITION No. 26125 of 2007

¶6

Between: M/s Green Myriad Agrarian Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Director, DS Ramachandra Varma. … Petitioner Versus The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. VENKAT RAO

¶7

Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Agriculture THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO. 26125 OF 2007

¶8

ORAL ORDER:

¶9

This writ petition is coming up for admission.

¶10

2. Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. Heard Sri P. Venkat Rao, learned counsel representing the petitioner.

¶11

3. 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 like Amino Acid and Sea wood extract 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 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondent not to interfere with, in any manner in the manufacture, sale and distribution of the petitioner’s Bio-Products including from the licensed premises of the dealers/stockists under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act, 1985.

¶12

4. 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

¶13

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

¶14

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;

¶15

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;

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

deal with the products, notwithstanding the impugned letter and the memo, as long as the products are not insecticides or chemicals.

¶19

5. It is stated that the petitioner is running business. In the light of

¶20

the same, status quo as on today be maintained till appropriate action, if any, is taken, in the light of directions specified supra. No

¶21

order as to costs.

¶22

JUSTICE P . S . NARAYANA .

¶23

07 /12/2007.

¶24

NB: Furnish CC of the Order tomorrow. B/o. IsL

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

K.Ganna Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

B.C. Sanjeeva Reddy S/o. Subbi Reddy Vs Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Yerraguntla

Perla Someswara Rao Vs The Deputy Commissioenr of Endowments, Kakinada

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

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

Matta Ramesh Vs Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary