Back
2015 Supreme(Ori) 233
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
A.K. RATH, J.
Alok Kumar Agrawal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa & others - Opp. parties
W.P(C) No. 15618 of 2014
Decided on : 6.5.2015
For Petitioner:Mr. A.R. Dash, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Muduli, ASC.
Headnote:1. SEED CONTROL ORDER, 1983 - Sec.18(2) - Petitioner granted licence to carryon business of seeds - O.P. No.4 cancelled the seed license of the petitioner for misrepresentation of facts - Writ - When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned arid cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise - In the absence of any allegations or infraction of the provisions of the Seed Control Order, 1983 the petitioner cannot be punished or made to suffer for the action of his father and brother - Order of cancellation of seed license of the petitioner by O.P. no.4 is an infraction of the principle of natural justice and the same is quashed.
2. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Art. 226 - High Court does not act as a Court of appeal against the decision of a Court or Tribunal to correct errors of facts, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Art.226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief - Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to have another tribunal or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so setup.
3. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Art.226 - Alternative remedy is not a bar to entertain a writ application under Art.226 of the Constitution in atleast three categories, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an act is challenged. (Para-12)
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K. RATH, J - By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order No. 562 dated 2.8.2014 passed by the District Agricultural Officer, Padampur, opposite party no.4, cancelling the licence of the petitioner to carryon business of seeds.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that he is the proprietor of M/s. Venkateswar Seeds. On 9.7.2014, the District Agriculture Officer, Bargarh, opposite party no.4, issued licence to M/s. Venkateswar Seeds to carryon business of seeds, vide Annexure-1. On 10.07.2014, opposite party no. 4 issued a letter conveying the decision of the Government about the appointment of the petitioner. While the matter stood thus, on 2.8.2014, vide Annexure-3, opposite party no.4 cancelled the licence granted to the petitioner on the following grounds;
"xxx xxx xxx
1. Ms Baisnodevi Seeds proprietor Hariram Agrawal, Paikmal is black listed in seed transaction under the License issued by JDA (Farm & Seed) who happens to be the father of Sri Alok Kumar Agrawal proprietor Venkateswar seeds, Paikmal.
2. Ms Balajee seeds Paikmal proprietor Sri Deepak Kumar Agrawal vide licence is also blacklisted in seed transaction under Licence issued by JDA(Farm & Seed) vide Letter No. 21 dated 25/11/2011 who happens to be the elder brother of Sri Alok Kumar Agrawal, Paikmal.
3. Mischief future seeds transaction by Sri Alok Kumar Agrawal is also apprehended as he belongs to the same family."
xxx xxx xxx"
3. Pursuant to issue of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties 2 to 4. The sum and substance of the case of the opposite parties 2 to 4 is that the petitioner was the proprietor of M/s. Venkateswar Seeds. He applied for the seed licence to the opposite party no. 4 for doing transaction of seeds for paddy, groundnut, moong and arhar certified seeds at the storage place and the place of sale at Paikmal in the district of Bargarh. The seed licence was issued in favour of the petitioner on 10.7.2014, vide Annexure 1 and 2. The petitioner misled the opposite party no.4 by mentioning different storage address at different points in his application like in source certificate obtained from another Government agency, i.e., Odisha Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. mentioning his address as "At/PO/G.P-Paikmal", but in the application Form 'A', the address has been mentioned as "At-Kendubhata, P.O. Mithapali, Block-Paikmal". Further, in the rent agreement, the address has been mentioned as "Plot No. 305/873, Mouza-Dunguripalli, Tehsil-Paikmal". It is further stated that the petitioner is the son of Hariram Agrawal. Hariram Agrawal was the proprietor is the son of Hariram Agrawal.
Hariram Agrawal was the proprietor of M/s. Maa Vaisnodevi Seeds of Paikmal, Dist.- Bargarh. He had earlier committed serious irregularities for which, the proprietorship was blacklisted by the Government. Thereafter, Deepak Kumar Agrawal, elder brother of the petitioner, started the business in the name and style of M/s. Balaji Seeds. It was found that M/s. Balaji Seeds had utilized forged purchase bills of a prestigious State Agriculture University of Karnataka, i.e. University of Agriculture Science, Bangalore and utilized the forged bills, forged breeder certificate, forged breeder tags for foundation seed production by registering a non-existent groundnut variety, i.e., TMV-2 which was ascertained from the Director, Odisha State Seed and Organic Products Certification Agency vide letter no. 1011 dated 28.4.2014. The University of Agriculture Sciences, Bangalore had recommended for initiating legal action against the brother of the petitioner vide letter no. 26 dated 25.4.2014. Thereafter, the Seed Certification Officer, Sambalpur lodged an FIR against Deepak Kumar Agrawal for submission of fake and forged documents in the groundnut seeds production during Kharif Season of 2013 and misled the Government officials for which his licence was cancelled a
