Allowed

M/s. Gene 7 Biotech Private Limited v. The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

Telangana HC3 Sept 2012WP/27331/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged respondent interfering with bio-product manufacturing/sale via Mandamus. Court directed petitioner to prove industry establishment, submit product samples for analysis, and noted registration requirements if products match specific descriptions.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to prove industry establishment, submit 5kg samples of each product with literature, permit sample collection from sale points, and remit Rs.5000 per sample for analysis. Responden

M/s. Gene 7 Biotech Private Limited Vs The… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Writ Petition No.27331 of 2012

¶3

Date: 03.09.2012

¶4

Between: M/s. Gene 7 Biotech Private Limited, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And

¶5

The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. B.V. Aparna Lakshmi Counsel for the respondent : The Government Pleader for Agriculture

¶6

The Court made the following :

¶7

Order:

¶8

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in interfering with the manufacture and sale of the bio-products like Genestar, Grow Fact, Laksper and Derigene, which contains Amino Acid and Sea-Weed Extract, by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶9

At the hearing, learned Government Pleader for Agriculture submitted that a learned Judge of this Court has disposed of a batch of writ petitions in M/s. Aruna Agro Tech, Chengam Tk Tiruvannamalai and others Vs. The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad (W.P.Nos.17337, 17350, 18942 and 19654 of 2010, 21550, 21621, 21826, 21937, 21954, 21965, 22291, 22377, 23332, 23365, 23377, 23619, 26911 and 21526 of 2011) by common order dated 01.11.2011 with certain directions. He further submitted that as the petitioner has not filed proof of its establishing an industry for manufacturing of the bio-products, a direction to the effect that the petitioner shall produce the proof of its establishing such industry, may be added to the directions already issued by this Court in the common order passed in the above-mentioned batch of writ petitions.

¶10

In the light of the above submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶11

a. The petitioner shall submit to the respondent the proof of its establishment of the industry for manufacturing of the bio-products.

¶12

b. The petitioner shall submit a sample of 5 kgs., of each product dealt with by them together with the corresponding literature throwing light upon the manufacturing process as well as the contents thereof together with the composition/components of the products to the respondent herein. The respondent shall not refuse to receive the samples whenever submitted by the petitioner.

¶13

c. The petitioner shall also permit the officers authorized by the respondent to collect samples from the manufacturing units/sale points. The petitioner shall furnish details of their sale points to the respondent for drawal of samples.

¶14

d. The petitioner shall remit a sum of Rs.5,000/(Rupees five thousand only) in respect of each sample along with the samples to the respondent to meet the expenses of analysis.

¶15

e. Within 8 weeks from the date of compliance of conditions as indicated in Clauses (b), (c) and (d), the respondent shall get the same analyzed in a suitable laboratory and intimate the result of the analysis to the petitioner.

¶16

f. 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 and the Insecticides Act, it shall be entitled to deal with the products only after obtaining

¶17

registration/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, and

¶18

g. If the respondent fails to intimate the result of the analysis within 8 (eight) weeks from the date of submission of the samples as indicated above, 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.

¶19

It is also made clear that in the event the respondent receives any complaints from the agriculturists with regard to the quality of the bio-products supplied by the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to take necessary action in accordance with law.

¶20

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34806 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

__________________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 3^rd September, 2012 cbs

¶22

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶23

Writ Petition No.27331 of 2012

¶24

3^rd September, 2012

¶25

cbs

M/s. Gene 7 Biotech Private Limited v. The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Gene 7 Biotech Private Limited 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

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sri Ram Agri Tech, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. K. Balakrishna, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road

M/s. Avanti Feeds Ltd. Vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

M/s. G.K. Organic Life Sciences Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

M/s. Oil Palm Developers and Processors Association Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.Ramalakshmi, W/o Laxmana Swamy Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer