The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow due process of law, including providing opportunities for cross-examination and obtaining reports from the Seed Analyst and Central Seed Laboratory before taking adverse actions such as license cancellation.

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 6-10-2016 (Annexure P/8) by which the petitioner's license to run the business of processing and sale of certified seeds has been cancelled and by order dated 29-11-2016 the appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

2. Facts of the case are as under:—

(a) The petitioner is engaged in the business of seeds since 2008 having a License bearing No. 909 dated 8-5-2008 valid up to 7-5-2017. The said license was issued under the provisions of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.

(b) On 17-5-2016, the Respondent No. 3 took the samples of certified Soyabean seeds (JS 95-60) of Lot No. 0ct-2015-12-800A-36565-cl, Oct-2015-12-800A-37271-cl, from the premises of the petitioner. According to the petitioner that seeds were not packed for sale but for the National Seed Corporation. After taking the samples, they were sent for testing to the Government Laboratory, Gwalior. As per the report, 3 samples were rejected and in pursuant to report, a show-cause notice dated 13-7-2016 was issued to the petitioner alleging the violation of section 13(1)(c) of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and he was directed to submit an explanation with a detail of sale of rejected lot.

(c) On the basis of Government Laboratory, Gwalior a prohibitory order was issued regarding sale of the said lot of the seeds.

(d) The petitioner submitted a detailed reply of the show-cause notice submitting that the said lot has been dispatched to the National Seed Corporation vide Delivery Challan Nos. 2021, 2034 and 2036 on 14-5-2016, 31-5-2016 and 1-6-2016 respectively and at present they are not in the stock of seeds and later on they have also not received any complaint about quality of the seeds.

(e) Vide order dated 20-9-2016 the license of the petitioner was suspended. The petitioner preferred an appeal for revocation of suspension and thereafter vide order dated 6-10-2016 in exercise of powers under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 by a non speaking order, the license of the petitioner was cancelled.

(f) The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Director. This Court in Writ Petition No. 7536 of 2016 has directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within a period of 15 days. Vide order dated 29-11-2016, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal based on the report dated 2-6-2016 Government Laboratory, Gwalior. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

3. After notice, the Respondents filed the return submitting that the Notification dated 9-3-2000 was issued under Clause 12 of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 in respect of inspection and collection of the seeds. The Seed Inspector is empowered to collect the samples from the premises of the petitioner. After collecting the samples, they were sent to the laboratory under section 16 of the Seeds Act. The samples taken from the premises of the petitioner were found substandard as 70% germination was not present in the Soyabean seeds. Therefore, the authorities were justified in suspending and thereafter terminating the license of the petitioner irrespective of the fact that the National Seed Corporation is the owner of the seeds.

4. The petitioner filed the rejoinder submitting that for the same lots, M.P. State Seed Certification Agency issued certificate to the petitioner stating that the said lots duly confirms the parameters of the said Seed Act. The petitioner has sold 80.10 quintal of seeds to the National Seed Corporation and thereafter the Corporation has further sold the said seeds to the various farmers on 17-5-2016 and till date not a single complaint has been received about the quality of the seeds. The impugned order was passed on the basis of assumption that it might cause irreparable loss to the farmers.

5. I have heard Shri Ramesh Saboo, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate on behalf of the Respondents/State.

6. The Seeds Act, 1966 is an Act to provide for regul