Back
1991 Supreme(P&H) 1218
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
Jyoti Chemical and Fertilizers & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 58 of 1989
Decided on : 01-11-1991
For the Appellant : Bahal Singh Malik,
For the Respondent: T.S. Dhindsa, A.G.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of whether a provision in a control order is mandatory or directory, based on the language, context, and objective of the provision.
Headnote:
Mandatory or Directory - Fertilizer Control Order - 30 - The court considered whether Clause 30 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, which prescribes a time limit for analysis and communication of the result, is mandatory or directory. The court held that the provision is mandatory, as it lays down a time limit for each step and uses the word 'shall' in each sub-clause, indicating an imperative requirement. The court emphasized that the purpose of introducing the time limit was to prevent delay in the analysis of samples and ensure compliance with the law's letter and spirit. The court concluded that the report at Annexure P. 1 did not meet the mandatory requirement of Clause 30, leading to the quashing of the prosecution of the Petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners, a manufacturer and a dealer of fertilizers, challenged an F.I.R. and a challan based on a sample of Zinc Sulphate that was not analyzed within the prescribed 60-day period, as required by Clause 30 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. They also challenged the constitutionality of Clause 19 of the Control Order, which makes the dealer liable for the quality of the fertilizer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provision in Clause 19 making the dealer liable is not arbitrary or illegal based on a previous Division Bench decision. However, the court held that Clause 30(2) of the Control Order is mandatory, and the sample in question was not analyzed within the specified limit, leading to the quashing of the prosecution of the Petitioners.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of Clause 19 of the Control Order and the nature of Clause 30(2) as mandatory or directory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the language and purpose of Clause 30(2) of the Control Order, emphasizing the imperative nature of the time limits and the objective to prevent delay in sample analysis.
Final Decision: The court quashed the prosecution of the Petitioners and allowed the writ petition, with the parties bearing their own costs.
JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
Clause 30 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred" to as the 'Control Order) inter alia provides that "the laboratory shall analyse the sample and forward the analysis report in Form 1 within 60 days from the date of receipt of the sample in the laboratory to the authority specified in the said memorandum". Is this provision mandatory or directory? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case. A few facts may be noticed.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is a manufacturer of fertilizers. It produces Zinc Sulphate. Petitioner No. 2 is the dealer. It is averred that Petitioner No. 1 is very particular about the quality control and in the last four years hundreds of samples taken by the various inspectors have been found to be of requisite standard. Lists of these have been appended as Annexures P. 4 and P. 5 with the writ petition. A sample was also taken on December 2, 1985 from two different dealers. The sample taken from Petitioner No. 2 was not properly taken inasmuch as the seals were loose and it was also not analysed within the mandatory statutory period of 60 days prescribed under Clause 30. As a result a variation of 1 per cent was found on the analysis of the sample. A copy of the Chemical Analysis Report dated February 19, 1986 has been appended as Annexure P. 1 with the writ petition. On the basis of this report, an F.I.R. No. 26 dated April 3, 1988 was recorded and a challan dated November 19, 1988 was put up. Copy of the F.I.R. has been appended as Annexure P. 2 and that of the challan as Annexure P. 3 with the writ petition. Through this writ petition the Petitioners have challenged the F.I.R. as also the challan. A two-fold contention has teen raised It has been averred that the sample having not been tested within the prescribed time of 60 days the entire proceedings are vitiated. The provision making the dealer liable as contained in Clause 19 of the Control Order has been challenged as being unconstitutional.
3. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. It has been inter alia averred that the sample was taken and analysed in accordance with the provisions of the Control Order. The averment that the seal on the sample was loosens been specfically denied. It has been admitted that "the sample was analysed beyond the period of 60 days which was analysed in 76 days". It has teen averred that the visions of Clause 30 prescribing the time limit for analysing the sample of fertilizer are not mandatory but only director. It has been further averred that the provision in Clause 19 making the dealer liable is absolutely legal and valid. Reliance in this Court behalf has been placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 4109 of 1978 Satpal & Sons v. Chief Agricultural Officer and Ors. decided on November 20, 1978.
4. I have heard Mr. Bahal Singh Malik learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Tejinder Dhindas for the Respondents. Mr. Malik has contended that Clause 19 of the Control Order making the dealer liable is absolutely arbitrary and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. He has further contended that the sample having not been analysed within the prescribed period of 60 days, the entire proceedings initiated on the basis of the report of chemical analysis are vitiated. Mr. Dhindsa on the other hand has placed a strong reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of M/s Satpal & Sons (supra) to contend that the provision contained in Clause 19 is absolutely legal and valid. He has further contended that a fertilizer like Zinc Sulphate has a shelf life of more than a year and the provision in Clause 30 of the Control Order is merely directory and not mandatory.
5. So far as the contention regarding the validity of Clause 19 of the Control Order is concerned, the matter is concluded by the decision of the Division Bench in M/s Satpal & Sons case (supra) The Division Bench was deali
