The petitioner was denied statutory rights of referee analysis per the Fertilizer Control Order, necessitating procedural adherence for fairness.

1. We have heard Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel representing the petitioner, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel representing the State - respondents and Sri Shafiq Mirza who has put in his appearance on behalf of U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited - respondent no. 3 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Agro"). Also perused the original records produced by District Agriculture Officer, Raebareli who is present before the Court pursuant to our order dated 23.10.2017 / 25.10.2017.

2. Petitioner company is manufacturer and supplier of fertilizers and is primarily aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the Chief General Manager (Marketing) of U.P. Agro, whereby, the petitioner has been blacklisted for making supplies of fertilizers in future.

3. The basic premise on which learned counsel representing the petitioner has proceeded to advance her arguments assailing the impugned order dated 22.02.2016 is that though the impugned order is based on alleged test report of the samples of the fertilizer supplied by the petitioner according to which the samples were found to be substandard, however, while collecting and analyzing the samples, the officers of the State Government have not followed the relevant procedures of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "Control Order"). It has also been forcefully submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is absolutely non speaking one which is based only on the report and the instructions of the State government and hence any order sans application of mind by the authority, who has passed the order, cannot be permitted to be sustained.

4. Ms. Bisht has further emphasized that the provisions of the Control Order being statutory in nature ought to have been followed while collecting and analyzing the samples and by not doing so, the respondents have not only acted in contravention of the statutory provisions of the Control Order but on account of such an action, the petitioner's valuable statutory rights of referee analysis of samples have been marred.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by U.P. Agro, a perusal of which unambiguously reveal that the impugned order by the Chief General Manager (Marketing) of U.P. Agro has been passed wholly on the report and instructions of the State Government and further that in collection and analysis of fertilizers supplied by the petitioner, U.P. Agro did not have any role. However, Sri Shafiq Mirza defending the impugned order has stated that since the supplies made by the petitioner were found to be not conforming to the standards, hence, no fault, much less any legal fault, can be found in the impugned order dated 22.02.2016.

6. Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has also attempted to defend the impugned order and has tried to justify the procedure followed for collecting and analyzing the samples. Taking the Court to the original record which have been produced by District Agriculture Officer, Raebareli it has been submitted by learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel that sampling and analysis of the samples of fertilizer supplied by the petitioner were done strictly in accordance with the law and provisions contained in the Control Order and since the samples were found to be substandard as per the analysis report submitted by the Government Laboratories situated at Alambagh, Lucknow, no exception can be taken by the petitioner to the impugned order, whereby, the petitioner company has been blacklisted for the future supplies of fertilizers.

7. It appears that for the purpose of procurement of fertilizers, the State Government in the departm