Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.
Saidharani Shakambari Pvt. Ltd. - Appellants
Vs.
The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 25293, 25298, 31181 and 33325 of 2014, 940, 715, 983, 1314, 1347, 1709, 1974, 3020, 3076, 3088, 3172, 3867, 4289, 4823, 5210, 5314, 8869, 8899, 9107, 11660, 12535, 15445, 15705, 15888, 15898, 16862, 16863, 17232, 17301, 17356, 17417, 17795, 17827, 17893, 18019, 18054, 18169, 18180, 18194, 18217, 18398, 18471, 18507, 18523, 18531, 18750, 18772, 18796, 18887, 18920, 18928, 19122, 19128, 19198, 19213, 19232, 19254, 19625, 19786, 19917, 20010, 20133, 20166, 20286, 20403, 20560, 20576, 20595, 20942, 20954, 20977 and 21112 of 2015
Decided On : 10.07.2015
For the Appellant : P. Subash
For the Respondents: G.P.
Headnote:
Industry, Trade, Development And Business Laws – Constitution of India – Article 19 (1)(g) – Fertilizer Control (Order) Act, 1985 – Insecticides Act, 1968 – Manufacture and sale of bio-products – Challenging the action of the respondent-Commissioner and Director of Agriculture in interfering with the manufacture, storage and sale of bio-products by issuing a Memo – In the letter of even date by the respondent along with the said Memo, it is stated that these products are not covered either Act, 1968 or under Act, 1985. The substance of the Memo is that since these products are not covered under Act, 1968 and Fertilizer Control (Order), 1985, the stocking/exhibiting for sale from the licensed premises is not permitted – Petitioners, who are traders of the said bio-products, filed the above writ petitions on the ground that when the activity is not governed by the provisions of the Act, the respondent authorities cannot interfere with the activities of the petitioners – Held, Court cannot hold that the activities of the petitioners and the interference of the respondents are totally illegal. A balance has to be maintained in the facts and circumstances of the case, but such balance must have the sanction of law. The existing provisions are the provisions of Insecticides Act and Fertilizer (Control) Order. The provisions of these two enactments are sufficient to regulate the activities of the petitioners. Before taking any action on suspicion, it is necessary for the authorities to take a sample of the product in which the petitioners are dealing. On the basis of such sample only, the respondent authorities can see whether one or the other provisions of the said enactments can be applied. The respondents cannot interfere with the activities of the petitioners without following due process of law. The petitioners are entitled to exercise their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India, but the said right is subject to a restriction enunciated in the said Article – Directions issued – Petitions are disposed of.
A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.
1. These writ petitions relating to the manufacture and sale of bio-products are being disposed of finally by this common order with the consent of both the counsel.
2. Every year, number of writ petitions are being filed on the present issue and this Court passed several orders by giving guidelines.
3. It is stated that the writ petitioners are challenging the action of the respondent-Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad in interfering with the manufacture, storage and sale of bio-products by issuing a Memo No. II (1) 2085/2005, dated 21.01.2006. In the letter of even date by the respondent along with the said Memo, it is stated that these products are not covered either under Insecticides Act, 1968 or under Fertilizer Control (Order) Act, 1985. The substance of the Memo is that since these products are not covered under Insecticides Act, 1968 and Fertilizer Control (Order), 1985, the stocking/exhibiting for sale from the licensed premises is not permitted. The petitioners, who are traders of the said bio-products, filed the above writ petitions on the ground that when the activity is not governed by the provisions of the Act, the respondent authorities cannot interfere with the activities of the petitioners.
4. A counter affidavit is filed by the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh State, Hyderabad stating that in spite of the directions of this Court from time to time, the respondent authorities are not able to regulate/prevent marketing of the bio-products laced with the chemicals which are harmful to growth of the plant, animal and human beings. It is further stated that Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Insecticides Act and the Rules made thereunder empower the Insecticide Inspectors to search premises, seize documents, stop distribution of sale of insecticides and take insecticide samples for analysis. The directions of this Court are not serving the purpose. Unless the Department has got sample batch-wise either from the manufacturing premises or from the marketing outlets at any point of time, the Department will not get the correct result basing on the analysis report. The Department of Agriculture is analyzing the bio-product samples in National Institute of Plant Health Management, Hyderabad and it was found that several products manufactured by various companies found to be laced with chemical insecticides. It is the responsibility of the manufacturers of the product to declare the contents/composition and its preparation. Though the manufacturers mention that they manufacture herbal products but they have insecticidal properties and therefore, the provisions of Insecticides Act are attracted. Even if it is not figuring in the schedule, it is for the manufacturer to submit proposal to CIB&RC and get it approved after due testing and proof that product had such properties. In order to control the quality of product, it was stated that the following measures are essential:
"a) to direct the firms to furnish analysis procedure to analyze for the existence of the components mentioned in the composition stated on label. If analysis procedure is provided, the correct composition of the product can be verified. Due to non-submission of analytical procedure, Department of Agriculture with the help of National Institute of Plant Health Management is screening the products for the presence of more than 100 insecticides leading to high expenditure to department during the analysis of samples.
b) to direct the firms to pay the cost of the samples for each batch of the product and restrict the quantity to the maximum size of blending vessel. The firm should furnish maximum size of blending vessel to the verifying competent authorities.
c) to allow the Department to destroy products after due seizure whenever bio-products are found laced with insecticides included in the Schedule-III of Insecticides Act, 1968 are found in market; and
d) in case, insecticides are found durin
