Back
2004 Supreme(All) 1122
2004 (4) AWC 3685
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
M. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.
C.M.W.P. No. 33892 of 1999
Decided on July 8, 2004
Hira Prasad
Versus
State of U. P. and another
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sankatha Rai and A. K. Singh.
Counsel for the Respondent: S.C.
Interpretation of the provisions of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 in determining the scope of business activities falling under its purview.
Headnote:
Seeds (Control) Order - Business Activities - The court quashed a notice directing the petitioner to obtain a licence under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, as the petitioner's business of preparing plants of certain fruit trees did not constitute selling, exporting, or importing seeds, and thus did not fall under the Order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to quash a notice directing them to obtain a licence under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, claiming that their business of preparing plants of certain fruit trees did not fall under the Order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's business did not constitute selling, exporting, or importing seeds as per the terms of the Seeds (Control) Order, and therefore, the notice was quashed.
Issues: Interpretation of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and whether the petitioner's business activities fell under its purview.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of the Seeds (Control) Order and concluded that the petitioner's business of preparing plants of certain fruit trees did not amount to selling, exporting, or importing seeds as per the Order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notice directing the petitioner to obtain a licence under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 was quashed.
M. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.—Heard counsel for the parties.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the impugned notice dated 26.7.1999, Annexure-1 to the writ petition by which the petitioner has been directed to obtain a licence under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, which was issued under the Essential Commodities Act.
3. Rule 3 (1) of the Seeds (Control) Order states that :
“No person shall carry on business of selling, importing and exporting seeds on any place except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of licence granted to him under this Order.”
4. Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner does not sell, import or export seeds as stated in para 10 (1) of the writ petition. Hence, his business is not covered by the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.
5. Learned standing counsel has invited our attention to Annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit which is a copy of the petitioner’s application dated 4.8.1999 to be addressed to the District Agricultural Officer, Varanasi. In this application, the petitioner has stated that he prepares plants of certain fruit, trees and sells them.
6. In our opinion, this cannot be called selling, exporting or importing the seeds. Hence, the petitioner cannot be required to take licence under the Seeds (Control) Order. He has already obtained a licence under the Fruit Nursery (Regulation) Act, 1976, as stated in paras 8 and 10 of the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, allowed and the impugned notice dated 26.7.1999 is quashed.
