Back
1993 Supreme(All) 247
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
H. N. TILHARI
JANTA AGRO FERTILISERS, MEERUT - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
W. P. 973 Of 1993
Decided On : 04/23/1993
S.N.SHUKLA
The principles of natural justice require that a person facing adverse consequences from an administrative decision be given an opportunity to be heard and to present their case.
Headnote:
FERTILIZER CONTROL ORDER, 1985 - CLAUSE 28, 30, 31, 32 - FERTILIZER - REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE - CANCELLATION - ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE - OPPORTUNITY TO DEALER - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES OF.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a registered retail dealer of fertilizer, challenged the cancellation of his certificate of registration by the authorities under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 (FCO). The cancellation was based on the analysis of a sample of fertilizer collected from the petitioner's premises, which was found to be substandard. The petitioner contended that the sample was not collected in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Clause 28 of the FCO and that he was denied the opportunity to have the sample re-analyzed by another laboratory.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to have the second test sample analyzed by another laboratory, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court also held that the authorities failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Clause 30 of the FCO, which required them to provide the petitioner with certain information related to the analysis of the sample.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was denied the opportunity to have the second test sample analyzed by another laboratory, in violation of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the authorities failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Clause 30 of the FCO?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Clause 28 of the FCO, which provides for the collection and analysis of samples of fertilizer. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to have the second test sample analyzed by another laboratory, in order to provide him with an opportunity to contest the report of the first analysis. The court also relied on the observations of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Agarwal Pesticides and Chemicals Industries v. The State of U.P., which held that the requirement of leaving one sample with the manufacturer or dealer and another with the Inspecting Officer as a reference sample is to provide the dealer with an opportunity to get the samples re-tested in the event of the report of the analyst being challenged.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of cancellation of the petitioner's certificate of registration and directed the authorities to allow the petitioner to carry on the business in fertilizer. The court also directed the authorities to analyze the second and third samples of fertilizer by a laboratory other than the one which had submitted the earlier report, and to consider the results of the analysis before taking any further action.
( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has sought the relief to the effect that writ of certiorari be issued in his favour, quashing order dated 11-2-1993, passed by opposite party No. 3 and order dated 7-4-93, contained in Annexure No. 6-A, passed by the Appellate Authority i. e. opposite party No. 2 to the writ Petition.
( 2 ) THE petitioner has also prayed for issuance of order or direction to the effect that opposite parties be directed to order analysis of the sample lying with him duly sealed by a Lab other than one in which the previous sample was analysed preferrably by some Lab out of the State.
( 3 ) THE petitioners case in nutshell is that the petitioner is a registered retail dealer of Fertilizer, for which purpose, a valid certificate of registration has been granted to the petitioner under the provisions of Clause 7 read with Clause 9 of the F. C. O. , 1985 and thereunder the petitioner had been carrying on the business at the place known as Phalauda, District Meerut. According to the petitioners case on 8-11-1992 a sample of 15:15:7. 5 N. P. K. brand of fertilizer was collected from the business premises of the petitioner by the Deputy Director, Extension, Meerut and the same was sent for analysis.
( 4 ) THE petitioners case is that the sample was collected by hand, by opening the factory stiched bag and that too only from the upper layer of the bag and so the sample could not be said to be worth analysis. The said sample was collected under the provisions of Clause 28 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 by the Deputy Director of Extension (Agriculture), Meerut, acting as Fertilizer Inspector and the sample was sent for analysis by the District Agriculture Officer, Meerut and the result of the same was communicated to the petitioner vide show cause notice No. 2680, dated 9-12-1992 and thereby it was communicated to the petitioner that the sample, after testing, was found to be substandard and, as such, an action against the petitioner under Clause 31 of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 was being contemplated and he should show cause why the action be not taken.
( 5 ) THE petitioner has further averred that the petitioner submitted his reply and made special request that the sample with appellant-petitioner be got analysed from some lab other than one in which the earlier sample was got analysed. The petitioner vide his letter dated 11-1-1993 asked for certain other information from the opposite party No. 3 in connection with the compliance or otherwise of the provisions, mandatory in nature, of Clause 30 of the F. C. O. , 1985 but of no avail as opposite parties did not reply as they did not make any response
( 6 ) THE petitioner submits that thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal under Clause 32 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 before the Director of Agriculture i. e. the opposite party No. 2 against the rejection of request of re-test of the sample lying with the appellant by opposite party No. 3 and informed the opposite party No. 3 of the filing of the appeal before the Director. The petitioner submits that without awaiting and without hearing the contention of the petitioner the opposite party No. 3 vide letter dated 11-2-1993 cancelled the Certificate of Registration of the petitioner. A typed copy of the order dated 11-2-93 has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition, and order dated 7-4-1993 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6-A.
( 7 ) THE petitioner filed an appeal against the notice to show cause referred to above as well as against the cancellation of Certificate of Registration before the Appellate Authority i. e. challenging the order dated 11-2-93 and the Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioners appeal against the order dated 11-2-93 and to the petitioner u/s. 226 of the Constitution.
( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the petitioners Certificate of Registration has been challenged without giving him due opportun
