The court emphasized the public policy underlying the Fertilizer Control Order 1985 and the need to safeguard the equitable distribution of fertilizers at fair prices, highlighting the serious nature of the allegations against the petitioners for violating the order.

1. The petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions, challenging a communication dated 21.9.2011 sent by the Commissioner of Agriculture to the Joint Directors of Agriculture, Pudukkottai, Thanjavur, Thiruvarur, Thiruvannamalai, Cuddalore, Trichy, Kancheepuram, Villuppuram, Dindigul, Nagapattinam and Erode, calling upon them to take necessary action against the petitioners and others under the provisions of Fertilizer Control Order 1985 and the consequential show cause notices issued either by the Assistant Directors or by the Joint Directors of Pudukottai, Thanjavur and Tiruchirappalli.

2. I have heard Mr.S.Subbiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents.

3. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are licensed dealers in respect of fertilizers. The terms and conditions of license are governed by Fertilizer Control Order 1985, issued in terms of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. Since the petitioners claim to be distinct and different entities having separate licenses, it is necessary to have a look at the particulars of all the petitioners and the constitution of the business entity that they seek to represent. Therefore, they are presented in the following tabular column:-

W.P.No.11745/2011

W.P.No.11746/2011

4. A show cause notice dated 29.8.2008 was issued to Mr.A.Natarajan, in respect of the license pertaining to the area of Pudukkottai, by the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Quality Control), Pudukkottai alleging that the fertilizers intended for delivery to him were sent directly from the Chennai Port to a Company by name Sri Chemicals, Ambattur by falsifying the records. Therefore, the notice dated 29.8.2008 alleged that the petitioner violated Clause 35 of Fertilizer Control Order 1985 and that he must show cause as to why his license should not be revoked under clause 31(1)

(b) of the order.

5. Thepetitioner gave a reply dated 29.8.2008. But the Assistant Director, Pudukkottai did not take follow up action. However criminal proceedings were lodged in C.C.No.10731 of 2010 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Mr.A.Natarajan filed Criminal OP Nos.27503 and 27504 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Bench of this Court for quashing the criminal complaint. The petitions were admitted and an interim stay was granted. They are pending. Consequently, the prosecution has not progressed any further.

6. Thereafter the petitioners received identically worded notices dated 28.9.2011, alleging that the petitioners were indulging in sale and smuggling of fertilizers to other States for purposes other than for agricultural use and that they should show cause as to why the licenses should not be revoked, for the violation of the Fertilizer Control Order. The said show cause notices dated 28.9.2011 had a reference to an internal communication sent on 21.9.2011 by the Commissioner of Agriculture, to the Joint Directors of Agriculture of Pudukkottai, Thanjavur, Thiruvarur, Thiruvannamalai, Cuddalore, Trichy, Kancheepuram, Villuppuram, Dindigul, Nagapattinam and Erode. By this communication, the Commissioner had asked all the Joint Directors to take action against the dealers (the petitioners) for violating the conditions of license and violating the provisions of FCO 1985.

7. Therefore, the petitioners originally filed the above writ petitions, challenging only the show cause notices dated 28.9.2011 issued by Assistant/ Joint Directors of Agriculture. Thereafter, they had the prayer amended, so as to seek the quashing of the communication dated 21.9.2011 issued by the Commissioner.

8. The internal communication sent by the Commissioner to the Joint Directors dated 21.9.2011 and the show cause notices issued by the Joint/ Assistant Directors dated 28.9.2011 are challenged by the petitioners on the following grounds:-

(i) that the impugned communications rely upon the prosecution launched against the petiti