R.N.SAHAY
Hindustan Agencies – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
K. N. sanay, J.
1. Heard.
2. The petitioner is a proprietory firm dealing in fertilizer. The petitioner had licence for dealing in fertiliser under Fertilizer Control Act, 1985. This order is a Central order.
3. It appears that by notification dated 16th April, 1986, the State government authorised certain authorities including B. D. O. under clause 27 of the order which states that the State Government or the Central government may by notification in the official gazette appoint such number of persons, as it thinks necessary, to be Inspectors of fertilisers for the purpose of this Order.
4. In the instant case, on 8-9-1992 the petitioners premises was inspected and detected some discrepancies in the stock register. According to the petitioner although he obtained licence on 8-9-1w2 but had not started business when the search was made. The shop of the petitioner was closed. The fertiliser of the petitioner was seized by the B. D. O. The prosecution was launched under Sec.1 of the E. C. Act.
5. It appears that the Central government amended the Fertiliser order by S. O.261 (E), dated 16th April, 1991 and the following clause was inserted after Clause 27 of the Order-
"27-A.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.