Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(AP) 133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ., RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.
The State of Andhra Pradesh & others - Appellants
Versus
Kalangi Nageswara Rao - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 313 of 2017 along with W.A.Nos.618, 619, 621, 622, 627, 629, 630, 631, 632, 637, 644, 651, 662, 668, 699, 700, 737, 770, 772, 776, 788 & 789 of 2017
Decided On : 18-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :GP for Agriculture Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mullapudi Satyanarayana, Mr. B. S. Reddy & Mr. G. Dinesh Kumar.

Wholesale dealers can sell fertilizers outside their district but must file a separate Memorandum of Intimation for authorization as per the Control Order.

Headnote:
(A) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 - Clause 8 - Writ Appeals challenging the judgment allowing wholesale dealers to sell fertilizers outside their district without specific restrictions - The amendment to G.O.Ms.No.297 removed the authority for wholesale dealers to operate across districts without a separate Memorandum of Intimation - The court found that while there is no outright ban on sales outside a district, proper authorization is required for points of sale outside the designated area. (Paras 11, 17, 19)

(B) Jurisdiction of Notified Authority - The scheme of the Control Order requires that any dealer wishing to sell outside their district must file a separate Memorandum of Intimation with the Notified Authority. (Paras 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, wholesale dealers authorized under the Control Order, challenged the interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.297, which they argued restricted their ability to sell fertilizers outside their district. The learned single judge ruled in favor of the petitioners, allowing sales outside their district. (Paras 10, 11)

Findings of Court:
The court modified the previous judgment, clarifying that while sales can occur outside the district, a separate Memorandum of Intimation must be filed for points of sale outside the designated area. (Paras 19)

Issues: The main issues were whether wholesale dealers could sell fertilizers outside their district without specific restrictions and the interpretation of the Control Order post-amendment. (Paras 11, 17)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Control Order does not impose a total ban on sales outside a district but requires proper authorization for such sales, emphasizing the need for compliance with the Memorandum of Intimation process. (Paras 16, 17)

Result: Writ Appeals disposed of with modifications.

JUDGMENT :

(DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ.)

This batch of Writ Appeals, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, have been filed challenging the judgment and order impugned, dated 29.12.2016, passed in W.P.No.6145 of 2013 & batch.

2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved and considering the fact that the judgment and order impugned is also common to all the writ appeals, we propose to dispose of the present batch of writ appeals by way of a common order.

3. With a view to understand the background in the context of which the present controversy has arisen, the material facts are as under:

The petitioners are all wholesale dealers who have been authorized to deal in fertilizers in terms of the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 , (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Control Order’) which has been issued by the Government of India in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 .

4. It would be worthwhile to refer to some of the relevant provisions of the Control Order for understanding the controversy in its correct perspective.

Clause 8 of the Control Order deals with the ‘application for intimation or registration’.

Clause 8(2) envisages that every person including a manufacturer, an importer, a pool handling agency, wholesaler and a retail dealer intending to sell or offer for sale or carrying on the business of selling of fertilizer shall make a ‘Memorandum of Intimation’ to the Notified Authority, in Form A-1 together with the fee prescribed under clause 36 and certificate of source in Form O.

Clause 8(3) envisages that on receipt of a ‘Memorandum of Intimation’, the Notified Authority should issue an acknowledgement of receipt in Form A-2 and it shall be deemed to be an authorization letter granted and the concerned person as authorised dealer for the purposes of the Control Order.

However, sub-clauses of Clause 8 of the Control Order are not relevant, which are not being referred to.

5. For facility of reference, Form-A1 is reproduced hereunder:

-“FORM ‘A 1’

Memorandum of Intimation

1. Details of the application:

(a) Name of the applicant

2. Place of business (Please give full address)

….

3. Whether the application is for –

Manufacturer Importer Pool Handling Agency

Wholesale Dealer Retail Dealer

[Tick mark whichever is applicable]

…..

7. …..

Terms and Conditions of authorization:

….

(2) I shall from time to time report to the Notified Authority and inform about change in the premises of sale depot and godowns attached to sale depot.

….

(5) I shall file a separate Memorandum of Intimation for, where the storage point is located outside the area jurisdiction of the Notified Authority where the sale depot is located.

(6) I shall file a separate Memorandum of Intimation for each place when the business of selling fertilizers is intended to be carried on at more than one place.”

6. Since Clause 8(2) as also the Form A-1 and Form A-2 makes a reference to the Notified Authority, it would be pertinent to refer to the definition of ‘Notified Authority’, which is contained in Clause 2(nn) of the Control Order, which defines it to mean an authority appointed under Clause 26A.

Clause 26A defines the ‘Notified Authority’ as under:

“26A. Notified Authority- The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such number of persons, as it thinks necessary, to be Notified Authorities for the purpose of this Order and define the local limits within which each such Notified Authority shall exercise his jurisdiction.”

7. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 15.12.2009, the Agriculture & Cooperation (FP-III) Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause 26A of the Control Order prescribing the area of operation of the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular), District Joint Director of Agriculture and the Additional Director of Agriculture (Fertilizer), which was as under:

“(I) The Additional Director of Agriculture who is l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document