Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS – Appellants
VERSUS
MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. PVT. LTD. – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6564 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 28245 of 2018)
Decided On : 22-08-2019
(a) Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 - Form B, Clause 5 - Licence for Selling/exporting/importing seeds is place specific - Separate licence is required for each place of Selling/exporting/importing seeds so that such locations are known to the Seeds Inspector. (Para 19)
(b) Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 - Form B, Clause 5 - Respondent having licence for storage and sale of seeds at three places each - Not having licence for its godown at dhanora either as storage or as sale point - Respondent having licence only for processing at Dhanora - Evidence showing packaging and labeling activities being carried out for which no licence taken - Processing does not include packaging and labeling - Rule 2(j), Seeds Rules, 1968; and the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2010 - Packaging and labeling of seeds at Dhanora held illegal. (Para 21, 24, 25)
(c) Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 - Clause 3 r/w Section 11 and 7, Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 and Rule 4, Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2010 - Respondent not obtaining licence for storage, packaging and labelling of seeds at Dhanora godown - In absence of such licence huge quantity of seeds cannot be subject to inspection with respect to related laws. (Para 26)
(d) Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 - Section 12(2)(g) - Respondent obtaining permission to undertake confined BRL II field trial of “Bollgard II × Roundup Ready Flex (BGII RR Flex) Cotton Hybrid - Permission expiring in 2013 - No permission beyond 2013 shown - respondent was required to burn the GE material or obtain specific permission from GEAC to keep the stock - Neither was done - Respondent held violating section 12(2)(g). (Para 28)
(e) Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 - Section 11 r/w Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2010 - Separate licence required for packaging and labelling - Not obtained - Respondent only having licence under Factoriess Act - activities of packaging and labelling held illegal. (Para 29)
(f) Seeds Act, 1966 - Section 14 and 15 r/w Rule 23, Seeds Rules, 1968; Clause 13(d), Seeds (Control) Order, 1983; section 7(2), Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 and Rule 13, Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2010 - Seeds Inspector authorized to even break open the door or container, if required and seize any seed - Not empowered to seal any place - But conferred wide powers to “exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Seeds Act or any rule made thereunder” - Held, in rare and exceptional cases, Seed Inspector has power to seal the premises where the exigencies of the situation so require, subject to safeguards provided in Act, 1966 and Rules 1968. (Para 31, 32, 33)
(g) Seeds Act, 1966 - Section 14(1)(c) - Expression “reason to believe that an offence under the Seeds Act has been or is being committed” - Implies a belief arrived at after consideration of the available materials with the sense of responsibility - Held, power of “sealing of premises” can be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases and only on satisfaction of the Seed Inspector that exercise of such power is necessary to carry out the purposes of the Seeds Act or the rules made thereunder. (Para 34, 35)
(h) Seeds Act, 1966 - Section 14(1)(c) - Instantly respondent found to have stocked genetically modified seed of RRF Hybrid Cotton - Such seed requiring approval of Genetical Engineering Approval Committee - Respondent not submitting such approval - No licence to stock seeds at Dhanora - authorities sealing the place after giving several opportunities - No infirmity. (Para 36)
Facts of the case:
Respondent-Company is engaged in the business of research, production, processing, marketing and sale of variety of Hybrid seeds. The respondent-Company had already obtained seeds licences under the provision of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2010 and they are having licence for the storage and sale of such seeds in the State of Maharashtra. All such processed seeds are then stored in the storage attached to the processing unit at the godown at Dhanora for being transported to different places.
On 08.12.2017, local police inspected the godown of the respondent located at Dhanora and noticed suspected seeds of various kinds stocked and the police informed the concerned authorities of the agricultural department. On 09.12.2017, the Seed Inspector inspected the respondent’s godown at Dhanora and noticed huge quantity of seeds of various kinds stocked in random stakes in various godowns along with seeds suspected as Roundup Ready Flex (RRF) Hybrid Cotton. The Plant In-Charge was informed to furnish the Seed Inspector the information about crop wise, variety wise and lot wise stock details of the seeds along with stake details in various godowns. On 10.12.2017, Plant In-Charge submitted the details of crop wise, variety wise and lot wise quantity out of the total stock of seeds in the godown. The Seed Inspector issued a notice to the respondent-Company on 15.12.2017 asking to provide certain documents and informing that in case of non-supply of the documents, the godown and the entire premises at Dhanora would be sealed. The godown was sealed by executing a panchnama to prevent further violation of the provisions.
Aggrieved by the sealing of the Dhanora godown, respondent filed Writ Petition before the High Court. The High Court vide interim order directed the appellant-authorities to open the sealed godown.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the actions of the authorities.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 21.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.8157 of 2017 in and by which the High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-Company thereby ordering the appellant-authorities to de-seal all the godowns of the Company at Dhanora which was sealed by the appellant-authorities.
3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows:-
Respondent-Company is a registered Company under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of research, production, processing, marketing and sale of variety of Hybrid seeds. According to the respondent-Company, they have already obtained seeds licences under the provision of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2010 and that they are having licence for the storage and sale of such seeds in the State of Maharashtra. According to the respondent, the processing of cotton and non-cotton seeds of different varieties is done by the respondent in its processing unit/plant situated at Dhanora. All such processed seeds are then stored in the storage attached to the processing unit at the godown at Dhanora for being transported to different places.
4. Case of the appellant is that the respondent not having a valid licence for the processing unit at Dhanora has committed gross violation of the provisions of the mandate of the Seeds Act, 1966, Seeds Rules, 1968, Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and the provisions of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009. On 08.12.2017, local police inspected the godown of the respondent located at Dhanora and noticed suspected seeds of various kinds stocked and the police informed the concerned authorities of the agricultural department. On 09.12.2017, the Seed Inspector inspected the respondent’s godown at Dhanora and noticed huge quantity of seeds of various kinds stocked in random stakes in various godowns along with seeds suspected as Roundup Ready Flex (RRF) Hybrid Cotton. The Plant In-Charge was informed to furnish the Seed Inspector the information about crop wise, variety wise and lot wise stock details of the seeds along with stake details in various godowns. It is stated that on 10.12.2017, Plant In-Charge submitted the details of crop wise, variety wise and lot wise quantity out of the total stock of seeds in the godown. According to the appellant, the details so furnished were incomplete and indeterminate. The appellant alleges that the Plant In-Charge did not cooperate towards the written instruction of the Seed Inspector on the same day. The Seed Inspector therefore issued a notice to the respondent-Company on 15.12.2017 informing the Plant Manager that the appellant Company does not have the licence for storage or sale of the seeds in Dhanora unit and that it has come to their knowledge that the activity of sale is being carried out by respondent in their godown at Dhanora. In the show-cause notice, the respondent was asked to provide certain documents and informed that in case of non-supply of the documents, the godown and the entire premises at Dhanora would be sealed. The appellants claim that respondent did not produce the documents and accordingly, the godown was sealed by executing a panchnama to prevent further violation of the provisions.
5. Aggrieved by the sealing of the Dhanora godown, respondent filed Writ Petition No.8157 of 2017 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The High Court vide interim order dated 22.12.2017 directed the appellant-authorities to open the sealed godown after taking a prima facie view and held that since the requisite sample of the seeds has already been taken and no purpose would be served in keeping the storage sealed. The High Court held that packed and labe
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
