Disposed

M/s. Shefa Agricare Technologies v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Apr 2019WP/2877/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order disposed of a writ petition challenging alleged illegal interference with the manufacturing and sale of bioproducts. The Court ruled that the issue was squarely covered by a prior Division Bench judgment following the same common order passed in a similar batch of petitions, and disposed the present petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the earlier common judgment dated 03.11.2016 passed in Writ Appeal Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016.

M/s. Shefa Agricare Technologies Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No.2877 of 2019

¶2

ORDER:

¶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 manufacturing, sale and distribution of bioproducts of petitioner-Firm Viz Shelazyme-L Shefazyme-Gr, Shefa Antivirus, Humisat, Humisat-G, Teahum, Panchamrutha, Shefa Neemcare, Shefastick, Bacsat, Kaneem, Shephate, Chlorosat, Halo, Satmida, Duet, Satsum, Satkar-G, Satkar 50, Satpride, Vibgyor, AmazSAT, BanaSAT, Gooly, ShefaMix, Fantastick, Shefa Subhiksha, Shefagold, Nanozyme and Nanozyme-G by issuing Memo.No.PP.II(1) 2085/2005, dated 21.12.2006 and Letter.No.PP.II 12085/2005, dated 21.1.2006, as being illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and without and further direct the respondent not to interfere with in any manner in manufacturing 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

¶6

well as the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture 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 Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016 vide common judgment, dated 03.11.2016, and the said judgments are placed on record.

¶7

¶8

Relevant portion of the aforesaid common judgment, dated

¶9

03.11.2016 in Writ Appeal Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016 is extracted as follows:

¶10

“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.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending shall stand closed.

¶15

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

¶17

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶18

16.04.2019 dv

M/s. Shefa Agricare Technologies v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Shefa Agricare Technologies v. The State of Telangana

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

Sri v. Madhava Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Vithabai Mysker Vs State of Telangana

A Manohar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Dodla Malla Reddy Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Leafgen Biotech Private Limited Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

M/s.1 Expert Bio Science Vs State of Telangana