Disposed

M/s. Warkem Biotech Private Limited, v. The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

Telangana HC6 Feb 2019WP/2209/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging interference with the sale of bioproducts. It relied on a previous common order (WP No.25293 of 2014) modified in Writ Appeals 1122/1136 of 2016, ordering that no separate order be made and existing guidelines apply unless superseded by legislation.

What did the court decide?

Pendency disposed without separate order; previous guidelines apply.

M/s. Warkem Biotech Private Limited, Vs The… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 2209 of 2019

¶2

O R D E R:

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

¶4

“…to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in interfering with the sale and distribution of bioproducts of petitioner-Company i.e., HiFoliar, HiFoliar Plus, HumiKure, Super Stiker, Auper Adjv, Super Floress302, Super Fix 303, Super Azo309, Super Ace, Super Nodulex, Super Spiral, Super Zoro, Super Brew, Super Myco, Super Roo Tric, Super Bac Plus, Super Star, Super Vinashak, Super Ghatka, Super Thur-I, Super Thur-K, Super Hir-T, Super Nmo, Super Poco, Gluee, Pad-Y, Gluee Pad-B. Gluee Roll-B, Super V-Fly 102. SuperF-Fly 086, Super Helicop 025, No Bird Ribbon, SuperSOS and WiSuperSOS, by issuing Memo No PP.II(1)12085/2005 dated 21.01.2006 and Letter No.PP II(1)12085/2005 dated 21.01.2006 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondent not to interfere with in any manner in the sale and distribution of bio-products including from the licensed premises of the dealers/stockists under the Insecticides Act 1968 and the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act 1985…..”

¶5

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture (Telangana) appearing for the respondent that the issue in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the common order, dated 10.07.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.25293 of 2014 and batch, as modified by the Division Bench of this

¶6

Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016 vide common

¶7

¶8

“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 categorization, 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 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 categorization 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.

¶9

The order under appeal is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove, and the Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingly.”

¶10

Following the aforesaid judgments and for the reasons stated therein, this Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof.

¶11

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition

¶12

shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

M/s. Warkem Biotech Private Limited, v. The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Warkem 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syeda Maryam Yasmeen Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. v.Vinodha Bai Vs The State of Telangana

Kancherla Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Billa Suman Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Balina Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Ravi Kumar Madana Vs The State of Telangana