Dismissed

M/s Green Bio Remedies v. The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

Telangana HC10 Jun 2010WP/26510/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad disposed of a writ petition as identical to an earlier disposed case, making the prior order applicable. An interim relief petition was also dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions of the earlier case applied; interim relief petition dismissed as infructuous.

M/s Green Bio Remedies Vs The Commissioner and… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.26510 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Green Bio Remedies Hyderabad.

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

And

¶10

The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture Opp: L.B. Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶11

… Respondent

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri

¶13

Counsel for the Respondent: GP for Agriculture

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.26510 of 2009

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

It is agreed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by order, dated 26.02.2008, of this Court in Writ Petition No.3913 of 2008, by which the Writ Petition was disposed of with the following directions:

¶20

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

¶21

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 analyzed in a suitable laboratory and intimate the result of the analysis to the petitioner;

¶22

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 of the Act; and

¶23

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”.

¶24

As this Writ Petition is identical to the above said Writ Petition, the same is disposed of in terms of the said order. The directions contained in the said order and reproduced above shall form part of this order.

¶25

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.34507 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶26

Date: 10.06.2010. ES

¶27

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

M/s Green Bio Remedies v. The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Green Bio Remedies v. The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roddam Mohsina Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Smt. G.Jayalakshamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sabbella Govinda Reddy Vs Sri T.S.v.v.S.N.Reddy, Gram Panchayat

N. Srinivasan Vs a. Madhavachari

K.Vinodhar Vs M.Sudershanam

T. Rajya Lakshmi Vs Joint Sub-Registrar