Disposed

M/s. Munara Agro Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Nov 2021WP/30359/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ Petition challenging the issuance of a memo and letter by the 2nd respondent interfering with the petitioner's sale of bio-products. The case was disposed of by following a prior common judgment dated 03.01.2016 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1122 and 1136 of 2016, with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/s. Munara Agro Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITI ON NO: 303s9 OF 2021

¶6

Betlveen:

¶7

M/s. lt4unara Agro Technologies Pvt.^{Ltd, Rep, by its Director, Ch. Sri Ramulu Naidu,} S/o. Ch. Appal6naidu, aged 59^years, R/o.^{D.No.10-3-74118,Saitr,4itraSri Nilayam,} Near Kenddy Vidya. Bh-avan, Teachers^{Colony, Eas!Marredpally, Secunderabad-} 500 003, Teianga-na State. Factory^{at . Plot No. 73, D.No 54-7-31} ,^{4th Cross,3rd} Road, Jawahar-Auto Nagar, Vijaydwada,^{Sale point in Telangana State is ql D.N.o} 1-6-45/36, Yadamma Nagar, Tirumalgherry,^{Secunderabad, Ranga Reddy District-} 500 01 5, Telangana State.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its PrincipalSecretary, Agriculture and Co-} operation Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture,^{State of Telangana Opp. L.B.} Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad,^{TelanganaState.}

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the HighCourt may be pleased to} issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more^{particularly one} in^{the natureof Writ of} Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd^{Respondentin interferingwith sale and} distribution of bio-products of^{petitioner-Company,viz., Optimum,Optimum PLVS,} Optimum Comptex, Humicat, Aminocal,^{Aminobor, Aminofer,tvlulti Trace,Aminomag} and Amino Pro, by issuing Memo No. PP.ll(1)2085/2005,^{daled 2110112006 and} Letter No. PP.ll(1)2085/2005, dated^{2110112006 as being illegal,arbitrary,} u nconstitutional, and direct the 2nd^{respondent not to interferewithin any manner in} selling and distribution of bio-products including^{from the licensed premisesof the} d ealers/stockists under the lnsecticides Act,^{1968and the Fertilizers Control (Order)} Act,^'1985

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶15

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 directthe} 2nd respondent not to interfere with sale and distribution of bio-products^{of petitioner} Company, viz., Optimum, Optimum PLVS, Optimum. Complex,^{Humlcal,Aminocal,} Aminobor, Aminofer, Multi Trace, Aminomag and Amino Pro, including^{from the} licensed premises of the dealers, stockists, under the lnsecticides Act, 1968 and^the Fertilizers Control (orde| Act, 1985,^pending disposal of the above Writ^petition

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. B V APARNA LAKSHMI

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE H )N'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.30359 of 2O2L

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Wri - Petition is filed for the following relief:

¶25

"......to is, ue a Writ, Order or^{Direction, more pa-rticularly} one in ttrr nature of Writ of Maldamus declaring the^action of the 2'^I respondent in interfering with the^sale ald distributit n of bio-products of^{petitioner-Compatry viz.,} Optimum Optimum PLVS, Optimum Complex,^Humical, Aminoca.l, Aminobor, Aminofer, Multi Trace,^Aminomag& Amino Pr,, by issuing Memo No.PP.ll(1)2085/ 2OO5 dated 2l.0l.2OC i and Letter No.PP.II(1)2085 / 2005^dated 21 .OI.2OC^-r as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitution al^and rvithout jt risdiction and further direct the 2"d respondent not to ir terfere with in any manner in selling^and distributic e of bio-products including from the^Iicensed premises :[ the dealers / stockists under the htsecticicles Act, 1968 rnd the Fertilizers Controi^(Order) Act, I985......"

¶26

It is sub nitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as u'e1l as th ) learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for the respondents that the issue in the^present Writ Petition ir , squarely covered by the common order,^dated 10.07.2015 pessed by this Court in Writ Petition^{No.25293 of} 2Ol4 and bat :h, as modified by the Division^{Benchof this} Court in Wri Appeal Nos.1.122 and 1i36^{of 2016vide} common^judgr tent, dated 03.¹ l.2016.

¶27

Relevant portion of the aforesaid common^judgment, dated 03.1 I .2('16 in Writ^{Appeal Nos. 1122 and1 136 of 2016} is as under:

¶28

"While we ale itr complete agreement with the^submisslon of Sri S. N ranj an Reddy, learned Senior^{Counsel appeari;rg} on behalf of the respondent-u'rit^{petitioner,that there}

¶29

cannot be an omnibus categodzation, of all bio_products as insecticides, for the purpose of taking action under the Act, tJre 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 supplalt the law, and would remain in force only till appropriate legislation - either plenary or subordinate _ is made ir.r tl'ris regard. Suffice it, while malcr]g it clear that there cannot be an omnibus categorization of all bioproducts 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 it-r 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 authodties 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. The order under appeal is modifled to ttre extent indicated hereinabove, and the Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingly."

¶30