Partly allowed

The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, v. M/s. J.U. Pesticides and Chemicals Pvt.Ltd.

Telangana HC3 Nov 2016WA/1122/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an impugned memo prohibiting sale of bioproducts in insecticide-licensed shops was not authorised by law. The Court modified the order, clarifying that bio-products cannot be omnibus classified as insecticides and guidelines supplement rather than supplant the Insecticides Act.

What did the court decide?

The order under appeal was modified and the Writ Appeals were disposed of accordingly.

The Commissioner and Director of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

Writ Appeal Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶4

While elaborate submissions are made both by the Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioners, both of them would agree that the questions which necessitate examination are (i) whether, by way of the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition, the appellants can prohibit sale of bioproducts in shops licensed to stock and sell insecticides; (ii) whether the authorities are empowered to classify all bio-products as insecticides; and (iii) whether the guidelines, stipulated in the order under appeal, would preclude the authorities from exercising their powers under the Insecticides Act, 1968 (“the Act” for short) and the Rules made thereunder.

¶5

As has been rightly held by the Learned Single Judge, the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India can only be restricted in accordance with Article 19(6) thereof. While the Act requires a licence to be obtained for storing and selling insecticides, no provision, either in the Act or the Rules made thereunder, has been brought to our notice which prohibit a licensee from selling other products, in addition to insecticides, in the very same premises. The impugned memo, whereby dealers were prohibited from stocking, exhibiting and selling bio-products not covered under the Act, from the premises for which a license has been granted under the Act and

¶6

¶7

the Rules, is not authorised either by any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder.

¶8

The fact, however, remains that though the guidelines, in the order under appeal, have been stipulated in the larger public interest of protecting farmers, some of the conditions prescribed therein appear to run contrary to the provisions of the Act. As the Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture has rightly pointed out Clause 6 of the guidelines, which requires a report from the concerned laboratory to be obtained not later than a week from the date of collection of the sample, does appear to fall foul of the time limit of one month specified in Section 21(1)(d) of the Act. Likewise Clause 7, which requires credible information to form the basis of collection of a sample, may well be construed as restricting the power, conferred under Section 21(1)(d) of the Act, on the Insecticide Inspector to withhold stocks if he has reason to believe that insecticides are being distributed, sold or used in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

¶9

While we are in complete agreement with the submission of Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner, that there cannot be an omnibus categorisation, of all bio-products as insecticides, for the purpose of taking action under the Act, the grounds on which the Insecticide Inspector has reason to believe, that insecticides are being sold in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, would depend upon the facts of each case, and cannot be circumscribed by way of guidelines issued by this Court. The guidelines prescribed, in the order under appeal, can only

¶10

¶11

supplement and not supplant the law, and would remain in force only till appropriate legislation – either plenary or subordinate – is made in this regard. Suffice it, while making it clear that there cannot be an omnibus categorisation of all bio-products as insecticides for taking action against the dealers of those goods, to also make it clear that the guidelines, prescribed in the order under appeal, shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the powers conferred on the concerned authorities under the Act and the Rules. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on whether or not any of these bio-products are insecticides, as these are matters which the authorities concerned are required to examine in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules made thereunder, and the guidelines stipulated in the order under appeal.

¶12

The order under appeal is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove, and the Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.

¶13

________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ

¶14

____________________________ A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶15

Date:03.11.2016 cs

The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, v. M/s. J.U. Pesticides and Chemicals Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, v. M/s. J.U. Pesticides and Chemicals Pvt.Ltd.

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

B. Venkateswara Rao, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

T.Sarojini Devi, Vs Deputy Commercial Tax officer

M/s. Kamal Corporation, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep its Principal Secretary

M/s.Sri Vinayaka Agencies, Kakinada, East Godavari Vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, a 15/2

M/s. Leela Sate Ram Steel Enterprises, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

The Etikoppaka Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Vs Commercial Tax Officer, New Colony, Anakapalle