The inspection and seizure of fertilizers under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 can only be carried out by Inspectors of Fertilizers appointed under Clause 19 of the order.

V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring that the order of the District Collector, Srikakulam as affirmed by the order of the addl. Commissioner of Civil Supplies and ex-officio, Secretary to Government, Food and Agriculture (CS) Department. Hyderabad, is illegal and unsustainable and to pass such further orders.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that, the petitioner is holding a dealership licence under the Fertiliser (control) order, 1957, on 6-9-1985 the Mandal Revenue officer, Tekkali has come to the premises of the petitioner and verified the stocks with reference to the wholesale and retail stock registers and bill books. He has locked and sealed the premises on 6-9-1985 itself. Again on 21-10-1985 the Assistant director of Agriculture, Tekkali visited the premises and opened the locks again verified the book balance and the ground balance and again locked and sealed the business premises. On 25-11-85 a show cause notice was issued by the District collector, Srikakulam stating that there is variation between book balance and the ground balance in respect of certain items of fertilizers and as per the report of the assistant Director of Agriculture, Tekkali there is contravention of condition No. 2 of the Fertilizer (control) order, 1957. It is further stated as to why the stock of fertilizers should not be confiscated and directed the petitioner to file a reply within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The case was posted on 9-12-85 for the representation of the petitioner. It is further stated that if explanation is not submitted within the time further orders will be passed under section 6 (A) (1) of the Essential Commodities act, 1955. The petitioner filed an explanation taking various grounds. The petitioner submitted that there is variance between the ground stocks and the accounts. It is submitted that the petitioner has been maintaining true and correct accounts for the stocks of fertilizers held by them. The petitioner has given detailed accounts of different fertilizers regarding their book balance and ground balance. It is further submitted that the seized stock register is upto 27-7-1985 and the transactions from 27-7-1985 to 5-9-1985 which have been noted in a separate register as per the directions of the Asst. Director of Agriculture has not been taken into consideration. It is further submitted that the concerned officers are not competent to seize the stocks as per the provisions of the Fertilizer (control) order 1957. The petitioner has specifically taken a ground that the Mandal Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to inspect and seize the fertilizers as per clause (19) of the Fertilizers (control) order, 1957. The Inspector appointed under clause (19) only is competent person to inspect and seize the fertilizers. In the instance case, the present Mandal Revenue Officer is not appointed as per clause (19) of the Fertilizers (control) order 1957. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. It is further submitted that the Asst. Director of Agriculture who visited the premises on 21-10-1985 has no jurisdiction as he has not been appointed under clause (19) of the Fertilizers (control) order, as an inspector and, therefore, the entire proceedings ary vitiated. Therefore, the confiscation is illegal and null and void. It is further submitted that even taking that there is a contravention of condition of the Fertilizer (control) order, 1957 the same is only a technical nature and the confiscation of entire stock is causing great loss and hardship to the petitioner,

( 3 ) THE respondents have filed a counter denying the allegations. The detailed remarks are furnished here under; 1, FCO 1957 was replaced by FCO 1985 which come in force on 25-9-1985. In this case initiation of proceedings in show-cause notice dated 25-11-1985. So the entire proceedings are illegal. With regard to the above contention, it is submitted that the revised

Click Here to Read the rest of this document