The writ petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner company manufactures NPK Mixed Fertilizer at its factory situated in Indore District of Madhya Pradesh. It is carrying on sale of these fertilizers in various States including Andhra Pradesh after obtaining an appropriate permission and license. On 25.7.2009, the Notified Authority/Additional Director of Agriculture, Commissionerate of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad granted authorization for carrying on the business of sale of fertilizers in Andhra Pradesh.

It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent – Additional Director of Agriculture visited the premises of the writ petitioner company on 8.12.2010 and inspected the records, registers including invoice register and seized the same on the ground that there are certain discrepancies noticed by him. A panchanama was also drawn in that regard at 3.30 PM on 8.12.2010. On 10.12.2010, a show-cause notice was drawn as to why the license granted earlier should not be suspended/cancelled for having contravened the provisions of Clause 4(a), 5 and 35 of Fertilizer Control Order (FCO), 1985. The contraventions noticed during the inspection carried out on 8.12.2010 have been listed in the said show-cause notice as under:

1) Stock position of fertilizers were not displayed at the premises

2) Sale Invoices are raised to the dealers at the Manufacturing Unit at Indore, Madhya Pradesh instead of raising at sale point i.e., at Hyderabad.

3) Stock Registers were maintained as per the convenience instead of in the prescribed form i.e., Form-N.

The petitioner submits that it is a wholesale dealer, but not a retail seller and hence the requirement to maintain display of stock position and price list of fertilizers by such a wholesaler would not arise.

Insofar as the 2nd allegation is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that in terms of Clause 5 of the Fertilizer Control Order, Cash/Credit Memorandum is liable to be issued by every dealer in accordance with Form M and the one used by the petitioner clearly discloses that it is issued from its Hyderabad Office.

With regard to the 3rd allegation, it is pointed out that the stock register is maintained strictly in accordance with Form `N’ whereas the inspecting officials have seized the internal registers and records maintained for operational purposes of the company and hence the premises upon which the show-cause notice was drawn is not available.

A detailed reply to the show-cause notice has been furnished on 18.12.2010. Pending further consideration, the 3rd respondent passed an order on 27.12.2010 directing the petitioner company to stop sale of its fertilizers until further orders. On 29.12.2010, the 2nd respondent has issued another show-cause notice alleging that the 14 samples collected from the petitioner have failed to satisfy the specifications. Then the petitioner filed an application on 3.1.2011 to furnish certified copies of Form L to enable it to give a detailed reply. Since the petitioner considered that the samples have not been collected in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, the petitioner company made a request for re-analysis of the samples as provided for under the aforesaid FCO. The 2nd respondent acceded to the said request of re-analysis. But, however, without waiting for the result of the re-analysis and without furnishing the certified copies of Form L, passed orders on 5.1.2011 cancelling the Certificate of Registration of the petitioner company. The appeal preferred there against was also dismissed on 16.4.2011. Then the petitioner instituted WP No. 11440 of 2011 challenging the legality and validity of the cancellation order. On 21.4.2011, the cancellation order has been quashed by this court and remanded the matter for reconsideration to the 2nd respondent, after