JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petition of the petitioner Firm may kindly be allowed:

(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 16.01.2017 (Annexure-7) as well as Appellate Order dated 28.07.2017 (Annexure-9) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) further by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Licensing Authority may be directed that on submission of the application for the renewal of the license by the petitioner Firm the same may be renewed in accordance with law.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Firm is engaged in the business of producing certified seeds, and that in the course of such business, it applied for grant of license as per Clause (4) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Order of 1983’) which was then approved by the respondent No. 3, and the same culminated into issuance of the necessary license, bearing license No. 1667 dated 14.03.2008, and subsequently, upon the said license being expired, the same was renewed by the concerned authorities from time to time.

3.1. Clause 4 of the Order of 1983 reads as follows:

“4. Application for licence

Every person desiring to obtain a licence for selling, exporting or importing seeds shall make an application in duplicate in Form ‘A’ together with a fee of rupees fifty for licence to licensing authority.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that after an inspection of the petitioner's godown being conducted by the Assistant Director, Agriculture Plant Protection, Sri Ganganagar and upon the submission of the report subsequently prepared, the petitioner's seeds were seized, followed by issuance of a notice to the petitioner to show cause (within two days from the date of such notice), as to why the petitioner's license should not be suspended/cancelled, in light of the alleged impropriety committed by it in the storage of seeds, thereby violating the prescriptions of Clause 3 sub-clause (1) read with Clause 12 sub-clause (2) of the Order of 1983.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No. 3 thereafter, suspended the license in question on 22.12.2016 without even affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, and that the petitioner appealed against the same under the relevant provision of the Order of 1983. Learned counsel also submits that subsequently, the license in question was cancelled vide order dated 16.01.2017, which order was also appealed against by the petitioner, but the said appeal was also dismissed by the respondent No. 2 on 28.07.2017, while upholding the order dated 16.01.2017.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the license in question of the petitioner was suspended and subsequently cancelled, because the petitioner-Firm has committed transgressions on the license in question, and that the godown was not registered on such license, which is a clear violation of Clause 3 sub-clause (1), Clause 13 sub-clause (1) (e) and Clause 13 sub-clause (2) of the Order of 1983.

6.1. The relevant provisions of law as under the aforementioned Clauses, read as follows:

“3. Dealer to obtain licence

(1) No person shall carry on the business of selling, exporting or importing seeds at any place except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of licence granted to him under this order.

13. Inspection and punishment

(1) An Inspector may with a view to securing compliance with this Order:

(e) seize any books of accounts or document relating to any seed in respect of which he has reason to believe that a contravention of this Order has been