Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 682
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
State Government of Madhya Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11704 of 2016; Civil Miscellaneous No. 1586, 14379 of 2017
Decided on : 25-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
J. Sai Deepak, Adv., Ashutosh Nagar, Adv., Sanjay Jain, Adv., Rakesh Kumar, Adv., R. Rajalakshmi, Adv., Sidharthshahi, Adv., Mohit Goel, Adv., Abhishek Kotnala, Adv.
Headnote:
Seeds Act - Geographical Indication - [Basmati Rice] - [Seeds Act, 1966, Sections 3(5), 5, 7(d); Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority Act, 1985, Section 10A] - The court set aside the impugned Office Memorandum dated 29.05.2008 and Office Memorandum No.3-35/2014-SD-IV dated 07.02.2014, as they were found to be without the authority of law. The impugned letter issued by respondent no.1 was also set aside as it was based on the impugned Office Memorandums. The court did not express any opinion on the notification dated 18.09.2017 under Section 5 of the Seeds Act, restricting the seeds production of Basmati varieties of rice to specific areas.
Fact of the Case:
The State Government of Madhya Pradesh challenged the Office Memorandum dated 29.05.2008, Office Memorandum No.3-35/2014-SD-IV dated 07.02.2014, and an impugned letter issued by the Ministry of Agriculture. The dispute arose from the standards and restrictions set forth for Basmati rice, including the geographical areas for production and registration of Basmati varieties for certified and foundation seeds.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned Office Memorandums and the impugned letter were found to be without the authority of law and were set aside. The court did not express any opinion on the notification dated 18.09.2017 under Section 5 of the Seeds Act.
Issues: The issues involved were whether the impugned Office Memorandums and the impugned letter were within the authority of law, and whether the restrictions on Basmati rice production and registration were in line with the Seeds Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the impugned Office Memorandums and the impugned letter were not within the authority of law as they exceeded the scope of the Seeds Act. The restrictions on Basmati rice production and registration were found to be outside the scope of the Seeds Act.
Final Decision: The impugned Office Memorandums and the impugned letter were set aside. The court did not express any opinion on the notification dated 18.09.2017 under Section 5 of the Seeds Act.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The petitioner - State Government of Madhya Pradesh - has filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the Office Memorandum dated 29.05.2008 (hereafter referred to as "OM-I"), Office Memorandum No.3-35/2014-SD-IV dated 07.02.2014 (hereafter referred to as "OM-II") and letter dated 05.05.2016 (hereafter referred to as "impugned letter") issued by respondent no.1 (Ministry of Agriculture).
2. By OM-I, respondent no.1 has set forth the standards of the "Basmati" variety of rice. Apart from setting forth the characteristics of Basmati Rice, OM-I also expressly provides that it would be necessary to ensure the linkage between the variety and the Geographical Indication and only Basmati varieties with prescribed characteristic grown in Indo-Gangeticregion would qualify for such description. By OM-II, respondent no.1had issued a direction to ensure that the registration of Basmati varieties for certified and foundation seeds is not undertaken outside geographical area detailed under the Geographical Indication (GI)for Basmati rice. By the impugned letter, respondent no.1 has withdrawn the allocation of seeds for Basmati allotted during the Kharif-2016, pursuant to the decision that production of Basmati variety seeds would not be taken outside the GI defined areas (areas included in the State of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, Uttarakhand, Western Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kathua District of Jammu and Kashmir).
3. The petitioner has challenged OM-I, OM-II and the impugned letter, essentially, on four grounds. First, it contended that it is outside the scope of the Seeds Act, 1966 (hereafter "the Seeds Act"); second, that the OMs encroach upon the power of the petitioner to pass laws in relation to agriculture, which is a state subject; and third, that it ventures into the statutory field of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (hereafter the "GI Act").
4. Respondent nos.1 and 3 (The Agricultural and Processed Food and Products Export Development Authority) dispute the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1, it was affirmed that OM-I, OM-II and the impugned letter were "passed in pursuance of and within the powers and competence of respondent no.1 under Sections 3(5), 5 and 7(d) of the Seeds Act, 1966 declaring the features of Basmati Variety seed representing Basmati and its trade to determine its quality, characteristics as Basmati category and which geographical region of the country should it be restricted to". However, the oral submissions made on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 3 were at variance with the counter affidavit as filed. Thereafter, respondent no.1 filed an additional counter affidavit seeking to explain the stand of respondentno.3. They now claim that OM-I was issued by respondent no.1 on the recommendations made by the Sub-Committee of the Central Seeds Committee made within the scope of Section 3 of the Act, which were accepted by respondent no.1 in exercise of its executive powers under Article 77(3) of the Constitution of India.
5. Before proceedings to address the controversy involved in the present petition, it would be necessary to note a few facts.
6. Respondent no.3 (hereafter "APEDA") is a body established under Section 4 of the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority Act, 1985. In terms of Section 10A of the said Act, APEDA is also charged with a duty to undertake measures in India and outside India for registration and protection of the Intellectual Property Rights (including GIs) in respect of Special Products listed in the Second Schedule to the said Act. Basmati has also been notified as a Special Product and, therefore, APEDA is also required to undertake necessary measures for protection of the Intellectual Property Rights in relation to Basmati rice.
7. Respondent no.1 has issued noti
