Unjust withdrawal of permission to sell sub-standard fertilizer when other dealers were allowed to continue selling the same brand.

J.M.Tandon, J.

1. The petitioner holds dealership registration certificate for the sale of fertilizer in the area of village Kakipind, Post Office Dakhoha, District Jullundur. On July 31, 1979, a simple of CAN 25 per cent (NFL) was taken from the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner served with a show cause notice dated October 14, 1981 (P-1) by the Chief Agricultural Officer Jullundur, which contained the report of the Analyst that the sample of CAN 25 per cent was sub-standard. The analyst reported that total nitrogen variation is 0.86 per cent against the tolerance limit of 0.3 and ammonical nitrogen variation is 0.56 against nil tolerance limit. The petitioner submitted his reply (P-2) to the show cause notice. The Chief Agricultural Officer vide order dated June 25, 1982. (P-3) withdrew the permission given to the petitioner for the sale of CAN 25 per cent with immediate effect on account of violation in terms of clause 13(i)(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 . The petitioner filed an appeal against the order P-3 which was disposed of by the Appellate Authority (Director of Agriculture, Punjab) vide order dated October 4, 1982 (P-5). The Chief Agricultural Officer, Jullundur, was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Sat Paul and sons and by the High Court in CWP No. 648 of 1979. The Chief Agricultural Officer again passed the order dated December 24, 1982 (P-8). The petitioner has assailed the orders P-5 and P-8 in the present writ.

2. The impugned order P-8 is similar to the order of Chief Agricultural Officer dated June 25, 1982, (P-3). The permission granted to the petitioner for the sale of CAN 25 per cent was withdrawn by order P-3 and the same is the substance of impugned Order P-8. In both the orders, the permission granted to the petitioner for the sale of brand of fertilizer found sub-standard was withdrawn whereas he was allowed to continue to sell all the other brands.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the sample of CAN 25 per cent (NFL) taken from the premises of the petitioner was found sub-standard on account of manufacturing defect and not due to any lapse on the part of the petitioner. The argument proceeds that in spite of the petitioner having not been given permission to sell CAN 25 per cent, the permission granted to several other dealers for the sale of the same brand continues to remain in force. Under the circumstances, the authorities erred in withdrawing the permission accorded to the petitioner for the sale of CAN 25 per cent.

4. The learned counsel for the State, though not conceding directly, has indicated that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on both the factual points is probably correct.

5. The National Fertilizer Limited which is a Government of India undertaking manufacture CAN 25 per cent. Assuming that the sample of CAN 25 per cent taken from the premises of the petitioner was found sub-standard on account of manufacturing defect and not due to any lapse on the part of the petitioner, it is unjust to withdraw the permission to sell this brand from the petitioner whereas such permission granted to several other dealers for the sale of the same commodity continues to remain in force. This aspect of the case has not been gone into by the Appellate Authority. It would, therefore, the appropriate that the Appellate Authority should decide the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Chief Agricultural Officer dated June 25, 1982, (P-3), afresh in the light of the observations made above and after hearing the petitioner.

6. In view of discussion above, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority dated October 4, 1982, (P-5) and that of the Chief Agricultural Officer dated December 24, 1982, (P-8) set aside. The Appellate Authority will decide the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order