Disposed

M/s Continental Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Dec 2021WP/30/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging interference with bio-product business sought interim relief and a ruling on trading status. The Court observed failure to comply with a central government order on bio-stimulants. While disposing petitions, it granted liberty to apply for provisional registration and clarified authorities may verify products. Allowance of pending work pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Granting liberty to petitioners to file applications for provisional registration within two weeks; pending such compliance, they are entitled to manufacture and distribute, subject to verification by

M/s Continental Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY .THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 30 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s Continental Fertilisers P\i.t Ltd, Rep by its Director, V. Amarnath S/o Nageswara Rao, Aged about 36 years, D. No. 45-8-210, Keertthi Nagar Colony, Gorrekunta, Warangal District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Agriculture Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Government of Telangana, HYderabad'

¶13

...RE''.NDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [,4andamus by declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the production, sale and distrlbution of Petitioners Bio Products such as N-CIVS, CIUS, Vasudha, Vasudha Gold, Suvidha, Suvidha Gold, Samruddi and Suraksha as illegal, arbrtrary and un-co nstitutio na I and without^jurisdiction and further direct the respondents are not to lnterfere with in any manner with the production, sale and distribution of petitioners products produced by the petitioners and marketed through its direct marketing staff and also through the licensed dealers / stockiest etc permitted under the lnsecticides Act, 1968, Seeds Act and the Fertilizers (Control) Order 1985.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 202'l

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with in any manner with the^production, sale and distribution of^petitioners Bio Products such as N-CMS, CMS, Vasudha, Vasudha Gold, Suvidha, Suvidha Gold, Samruddi and Surakstia and marketed through its direct marketing staff and also through the licensed dea lers/stockiest etc^permitted under the lnsecticides Act, 1968, Seeds Act and the Fertilizers (Control) Order 1985 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M. DELHI BABU Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR AGRICULTURE

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON )URABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUNTAR

¶20

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.30 of 2021

¶22

ORDI.]R:

¶23

This Wri Petition is filed with the tbllowing prayer:

¶24

"..the l-Ion'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, orcir or direction more particularl.y one in the nanre oJ Wri! of .,landamus by declaring the action oJ the respondents in inte fering with lhe production, sale and distribution of pefi ioners Bio Products such as N-CMS, CMS, Vasudha, Vas dha Gold, Suvidha, Sut,idha Gold, Samruddi and Sur, ksha as illegal, arbitrary and unconstittttional and vrithzut jurisdiction and further direct the respondents are not to terfere with in any manner with the production, sale and disu ibution of petitioners products produced by the petit oners and marketed lhrough its direct marketing staff and so through the licensed dealers/ stockiest etc., permitted ttnd<" tlrc Insecticides Act, 1968, Seeds Act and the Fertilizer (Con,rol) Order, 1985 and pass such other order or orders may leem Jit and proper in the circumstances oJ the case.

¶25

lrt is also just and necessary that this Hon'ble Court may n pleased to direct lhe respondents not lo intef/bre wilh ht ar,y manner with fie production, sale and distribution of petin ners Bio Products such as N-CMS, CMS, Vasudha, Vasu,tha Gold, Suvidha, Suvidha Cold, Samruddi and Suralsha and markeled through its direct marketing stafi^and also hrough the licensed dealers/ stockiest etc., permitted undet the Insecticides Act, 1968, Seeds Act and the^?-ertilizer (Cont'ol) Order, 1985 and pass such other order or orders may a zem fit and proper in the circumstances of the^{case. "}

¶26

Heard lear led counsel for^petitioner and^{learnedGovernment} Pleader for Agricr lture appearing for respondent^{Nos. I and 2.}

¶27

)

¶28

Counsel on both sides submits that the issue raised in^{this Writ} Petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Courtⁱⁿ W.P.No.48 of 2021and batch dt.j1-09-2021.

¶29

In view of the same, and for the reasons alike, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to fbllow the directions contained in the order dt.07-09-2021 in W.P.No.48 and 2021 and batch.

¶30

No costs.

¶31

SDIK.AMMAJI

¶32

ASSISTANT REflsrYR i

¶33

SECTION OFFICER I

¶34

//TRUE copy//

¶35

To, '1 . The Principal Secretary Agriculture Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶36

The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶37

One CC to Sri M. Delhi Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Agriculture, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶38

Two CD Copies

¶39

One Spare Copy

¶40

(Along with a copy of order dt:07/0912021 in W.P.No.48 ol 202'll

slr MMA

HIGH COURT

DATED:0111212021

ORDER

WP.No.3O of 2021

,.
* \r,i- -,.{/{.
oa <br>;
1 5 ilEC 20(:X
<br>

¶47

DISPOSING OF THE V P WITHOUT COSTS

¶48

4,L/'

¶49

¶50

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶51

WRIT PETITION Nos.48 277 t+449 L4495 L4497 19815 & 21O55 of 2O21

¶52

14518

¶53

COMMO N ORDER:

¶54

Heard Mrs.B.V.Aparna Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.48, 277, ),4489, 14495, 74497, 14518 & 19816 of 2021, Sri Panga Sivanarayana, Iearned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.21055 of 2027 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture & Cooperation.

¶55

In all these writ petitions, petitioners claim to be engaged in the business of manufacturing, sale and distribution of bioproducts, with individual names assigned to the products manufactured by them. According to petitioners, these bioproducts are manulactured without using toxic chemicals; they enrich the soil; ensure protection of plants/crops from viral, bacterial, fungus and other infections, besides being useful for getting more produce of the crop. According to petitioners, these products are not covered under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act, 1985. It is the further case of the petitioners that the bio-products manufactured and marketed by them contains See-Weed extract, Amino Acid, Press mud, Soil Conditioner, Organic Nutrients, Humic Acid, Fulvic Acid, Protein Hydrolysates, Gypsum, Plant extracts, Tulasi Water Extract, Soya bean extract and Egg Shell. Petitioners claim that these ingredients are sourced from principai manufactures, blended in stirrer with Acetone as Solvents and blended in water, and then whole liquid is filtered and packed in HDPE containers. The percentage of the ingredients will vary from one recommended crop to another

¶56

¶57

recommende(l crop. These are the ingredients which develop high cellulose ancL resistance power in the plants. Petitioners also furnished ad< lresses of the units in which manufacturing activity is taken up. Acr ording to petitioners, though they have complied with all the statu ory requirements and the products are purely bioproducts, wit rout using pesticides, the respondent authorities are harassing an I intimidating the employees and preventing them from manufa rturing and marketing the products, causing lot of hardship and suffering to the petitioners.

¶58

By pla :ing reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.2529: of 2Ol4 and batch, dated 10.07.20i5, the decision of the Divisio r Bench, in W.A.Nos. 1722 and 1136 of 2016, dated 03.11.2016, rnd the directions issued by learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.98Ol of 2O2O and batch, on 05.08.2O20, learned Coun,;el Mrs B.V.Aparna Lakshmi, would contend that the unnecessary nterference and disturbance to the manufacturing and distribur ion activity of the petitioners is ex-facie illegal, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and authority and discriminaton .

¶59

Learned Assistant Government Pleader sought to contend that petitioner s are required to comply with Clauses 4 to 6 of the order dated 2: '.O2.2O21 of the Government of India, and only after a provisional⁽ )ertificate of Registration is issued to them, they are entitled to ca rryon the manufacturing and distribution of bioproducts. He further submits that Part-'C' of the said order prescribes pro:edure for drawal of samples of bio-stimulants and if appropriate a; rplication is made b;r specifying all the details as required by tl e order, the competent authority shall collect the

¶60

-->.

¶61

¶62

samples, verify the nature of manufacturing activity and then only they will process the application for grant of provisionai Certificate and the petitioners should cooperate with the competent authority in undertaking the exercise.

¶63

It is his further contention that in view of the order dated 23.O2.2O21, of the Government of India, there is compliance of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court and petitioners are required to comply with the mandate of the order dated 23.02.202 1 of the Government of India. Unless and until, petitioners comply with the requirements of the said order, they are not entitled to undertake manufacture and distribution of bioproducts.

¶64

According to respondents, petitioners' firms were illegally manufacturing harmful products without giving intimation to the Commissioner & Director of Agriculture. Until analysis of the product with respect to ingredients is disclosed, petitioners cannot claim that their products are without toxic chemicals. The bioproducts stated to have been manufactured by the petitioners are covered by the notification relating to bio-stimulants, issued by the Government of .lndia on 23.O2.2021. Unless, petitioners comply with the said order of the Government of India, they are not entitled to carryon manufacturing and distribution of the bioproducts.

¶65

The statutory regime as now in force, consequent to the order dated 23.02.2021 of Government of India is not disputed. This regime is in the best interest of farmers and is in larger public interest. Therefore its compliance is mandatory. Learned counsel

¶66

¶67

for the petiti,,ners sought to contend that as required by Clauses 5r and 62 of the order dated 23.O2.2O2I, since petitioners have submitted ap plications for issuance of provisional Certificate of Registration, they are entitled to carryon manufacturing and distribution rf bio-products. The products manufactured and distributed b r them do satisfy the status of bio-stimulants and therefore, the re cannot be any restriction in manufacturing and distribution o' their bio-products.

¶68

Along u ith the reply affidavit in few of the writ petitions, the representatior rs made to the Commissioner and Director for Agriculture, a'e enclosed.

¶69

Since, rdmittedly, sofar, applications in compliance^q,ith Clauses 4 to^ir of the Government of lndia Order dated 23.O2.2O21 are not made and the issue is at the stage of consideration of such applications, .f any, submitted, the Court is not expressing any opinion on respective submissions regarding the status of petitioners' pr rducts as being called as bio-products/ bio-nutrients, to manufactu^-e and distribute without any hindrance created by the responder t authorities.

¶70

Having^'ealized that there is no valid compliance of the order dated 23.02.2121 of the Government of India, learned counsel for the petitioner r seeks leave of the Court to make applications in

¶71

I Clause 5: The ma rufacturer referred to in sub-clause (4) shall, rvithin a pcriod of six months from the date of pu:lication of this order. submit an application to the Controllcr lbr^grant ol' provisional regisratr )n in Form C- l along with -

¶72

(a) details of he product, its specifications, label and such other particulars as may be requiredl

¶73

(b) a certificat, issued by the State Govemment in Fonn G-2 Io the effect that

¶74

(i) the producr is available in the market prior to the publication of the said order: and (ii) no incident has come to its notice about hamrful effect ofthe product.

¶75

2 Clause 6: on rec('pt of an application under sub-clause (5) for provisional registration, the Controllff shall, by an order in writing, grant a^provisional cenificate of registration of biostimulart in Form G.3.

¶76

¶77

compliance of the requirements of the order of the Government of India.

¶78

1 1. In view thereof, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to make applications in compliance with the requirement of Clause 5 of the order of the Government of India, bearing No.S.O.882 (E), dated 23.02.2021, within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If such applications are made within the time stipulated above, the competent authority shall process the same and if satisfied, to issue provisional Certificate of Registration in Form G-3, within four (4) weeks thereafter.

¶79

It is made clear that the competent authority is entitled to collect samples in compliance of Part-'C' of the order dated 23.02.2021 and test the compatibility of the products meeting the parameters to be marketed as bio-nutrients, before granting the provisional Certificate of Registration. It is in the public interest to ensure that a product to be produced and marketed as a bionutrients with the object of helping the farmer to develop high cellulose and resistance power in the plants meets the parameters to qualify as a bio-nutrient. The petitioners shall cooperate in drawing the samples. Until the exercise as directed above, is completed, subject olcourse to petitioners submitting applications within the time stipulated above and in compliance of requirements of Clause 5 of the order dated 23.02.2021 of the Government of India, petitioners are entitled to manufacture and distribute as contemplated by Clause 4 of the order dated 23.O2.2O21. However, it is always open to the competent authority

¶80

-7

¶81

to verify wher her the products manufactured and distributed by the petitioner', are in compliance with the statutory requirements and take acl on as warranted by 1aw. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if ary, shall stand closed.

¶82

P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶83

7tr, September 202 1 N-qic:

¶84

lssue CC in one^(1t week Blo Rds/ Pl

M/s Continental Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Continental Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

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. Venkateshwara ginning and Pressing Mill Vs T.S state Financial Corporation Karimnagar Branch

M/s. Venkateshwara Ginningand Pressing Mill Vs A.P. State Financial Corporation Karimnagar Branch

P. Naresh Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Donthi Reddy Anitha Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary

Jilkapally Laxman Vs The Chief General Manger(Commercial)

Kancharla Gopala Krishna Rao Vs Government of India