Allowed

Uday Kumar Jain, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Nov 2023WP/30694/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the cancellation of his seed license without notice under the Seed Control Order. The High Court found a violation of natural justice, set aside the order, and directed the respondents to consider the renewal application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; liberty granted to respondents to follow due process; direction to consider renewal application within 4 weeks.

Uday Kumar Jain, Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 30694 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Uday Kumar Jain, S/o. Chandraiah Jain, Aged about^{52 years,} -P,roprietor, [Vl/s Halma Trading Company, D.No.4-64, Near Gram^{Panchayat Office, Atmakur} Vi llage, Sadasivpet [\ilandal, Sangareddy Diskict

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^Agriculture Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Telangana State,^Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Drstrict Collector and lt/lagistrate, Sangareddy District.

¶14

4 The District Agriculture Officer, Sangareddy^District-

¶15

5 The Assistant Director of Agriculture , Sangareddy, Sangareddy^District.

¶16

6 The Mandal Agriculture Officer, Sadasivpet Mandal, Sangareddy^District

¶17

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstarces stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more^particularly one in^{the natureof} Writ of IVIANDATVIUS to declare the Lr.No. C2 I^{14BlSeedsiDAO/SRD/ 2023} dated 08.09.2023 issued by the 4th respondent^{wherein cancellediterminatedthe} Seed License Bearing No.SRD/34IJD^{AlSDl2O2ll15647of the petitionerunder} Section I 5 (B) of Seed Control Order, 1983 based^{on the bogus/falsecomplaint} given Q! the complainant without giving any notice or without^{giving reasonable} opportunity is in violation of^{provisionsprescribed underSeed ControlOrder'} 1983 is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and set^{aside the same}

¶19

¶20

¶21

consequently direct the^{respondentstorenewthe Seed LtcenseBearing} No.SRD/34/JD AlSDl2Oz)l15647^{dated 29 4 2020}

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

Petition under sectron^{151 CPCprayrng that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petitionthe High courtmay be pleasedto} suspend Lr No C2l148/Seeds/DAOi^{SR Dt2O23 daled 08.09.2023, directingthe} respondents to renew the Seed^{License Bearrng No. SRD/34/JD A15D12020115647} dated 29 4 2020 forthwith

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH}

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents:^{GP FOR AGRICULTURE}

¶26

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶27

! Ii

¶28

-'---7

¶29

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS^RAO

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.3O694 of 2023

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

¶33

"fo issue a Luit order or direction^{more particularlgone in the} nature of Wft oJ LIANDAMUS to declare the^{Lr.No.C2/148/} Seeds/ DAO/ SRD/ 2023 dated^{O8.O9.2O23issuedbA the 4th} respondent raherein cqncelled/tenninqted^{theSeed License} Beaing No. SRD/ 34/ JDA/^{SD/ 2O2O/} 15647^{ofLhe petitioner} under SecttotT 15 tB) of^{Seed.Control Order, 1983 bqsed on the} botlus,/Jatse corrqtlaint giuen by the^{complainantwithout giuing} anA nolice or Luitllout^{giuingreasonable opportunitgis in violation} of prouisiorts prescnbed under^{Seed ControlOrder1983 is itLegal} orbttrary and utlconstitutional^{and setasidethesante} consequentlA direct the respondents to^{reneu) the Seed License} Beartng No SRD/ 34/JDA/ SD/^{2O20/ 15647 dated 29.04.2O20"}

¶34

With the consent of both the^parties, the^Writ Petition is being disposed of at^{the admission stage.}

¶35

Heard Sri Nayakawadi Ramesh,^{learned counselfor} the pelitioner and learned Assistant^{Government Pleader for} Agricullure appearing on behalf^{of the respondents.}

¶36

lrarned counsel for the^{petitioner submits that} solely basing on the report submitted^{byrespondentNo.6,} respondent No.4 issued impugned^{order cancelling/ terminating} the Seeds License of the^{petitioner withoutissuing any notice} and opportlrnity^to him.^{Hence, the impugned order passed by}

¶37

:- ,ffirli .t1:

¶38

¶39

respondcltt No.4 is clear violatrort of principles of natural justice :rnd contrary to law.

¶40

.5. I)er corttra, lcarncd Assistant GovernmenL pleader appcaring on behalf of thc respondr:nts submits that the petitioncr committed grave irregularitics and after conducting detailed enquiry, respondcnt No.6 issucd report and basing on the said report, respondent No.4 issr.red impugned order. Howcver, he submits that thc irnprugned order may be set aside and grant libcrty to the respondents to follou. the due process under law.

¶41

Having considered thc rival submissions made by [he rcspectivc parties and after pcrusal of the impugned order dated 08.O9.2023 issued by respondent No.4, it clearly reveals that before passing the said order, respondent No_4 has neither issued any notice nor given an-y opportunity to the petitioner and straight away cancelled/ tcrminated his license and the same is violation of the principles ot natural justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allwgn Housing Colong We$are Associatdon us Gouernmertt oJ And.hra pradesh and. otherst held that no order advcrse to a party should be passed without giving an opportunity of hearing.

¶42

I (2009) I Suplcnrc t'ourt Cases 489

¶43

¶44

In vic"v of the principle laid^{down by the Hon'ble} Supreme Court^{in Allwlrn Housing ColonyWelfareAssociation's} case (supra), the impugnecl^{orderpassed by respondentNo.4 is} liable to be set aside and accordingly^{set aside.However,liberty} is granted to thc respondents lo^{take appropriate steps} in accordance with lalr'-

¶45

During the course of hearing,^{learned counsel for} the petitioner submits that^{the petitioner'slicense was expired} on 19.03.2023 and^{the pe[itioner submitted an application to} the respondents [or^{renerval of h js license.}

¶46

g. In view of thc above submission,^{the respondents} are directed to consider the^{application submitted by the} petitioner and pass appropriate^{orders in accordancewith law} within a period of lour^{(04) weeks from the date of receipt of a} copy of the order.

¶47

Accordingly, lhe Writ^{Petition is disposed ofNo}

¶48

costs.

¶49

Pending miscellaneous^{applications, if aly, shall stand}

¶50

closed

¶51

SD. AH ASSISTAN //rRUE coPY// SEcIoN^5l'r,"t* Bu^{d inss' rhe} To,' tl*:,ttr*:?Eit.^{ilY,',[tll' :^::::::: ^:::'" "'} r?""'ieHvderabad 3i[:E#il,'"8ffi fi ;i{,ffi|;,:*:1$'"igiueJ'"Jslsfl 4. The^{District Agrtculture u}

¶52

¶53

5 I he Assrstant^{Director of Agriculture, SangareddySinga''c'iiY D]i[i:lt} O f n. fVr"Ort^{AgrrcultureOtticei. Sadasivpei Mandal Sangaretrot ;i:+lll.--.-.-} I

¶54

7 On. CC to^{SriNayakawadi Ramesh.Advocate [OPUC].}

¶55

¶56

e. i;; ccs to^{cp for Revenue,High Courtfor the State of Telangana'at}

¶57

\ Hvderabad [OUTI

¶58

g irirr-ccs t.'Gp ior Agrrculture Hrgh court for the^{State of Telangana, at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶59

10 Two CD^CoPies

TJ BS

l I,

C C TODAY

, I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0711112023

ORDER

WP.No.30694 ot²⁰²³

ge S i-Ar6:
o
(
tti Nl\l 2u?: ';
* I 4l.//
D [5;:,ii C.\ i

¶71

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS.

¶72

ln
,{,---.,
r'\ I
,iYl
;>

Uday Kumar Jain, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Kumar Jain, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sai Reddy, Nizamabad Dist Vs Prl Secy, Iandc Dept, Hyd and 3 Others

The Wholesale Fruit Commission Agents Association and 61 others Vs The State of Telangana and 2 other

Ayyadapu Andalu Vs the State of Telangana

S.K. Khasim Vs The Tahsildar, Kodada Mandal

Ashoka Industries, Rice Mill Vs The State of Telangana

Kassey Samuel Ratnam Vs The State of Telangana