IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao W.P.A. No. 2319 of 2025 M/s. Innovative Pest & Property Management Science & Ors.

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Samir Halder Mr. Snehal Sinha …For the petitioners.

Mr. Anjan Sengupta Mr. Sahit Talukdar …. For the U.O.I.

Hearing Concluded On : 06.03.2026 Judgment on : 12.03.2026 Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the Office Memorandum dated 14th January, 2025, issued by the Joint Director (PQ), Plant Quarantine Division, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare, NH-IV, Faridabad, Haryana, banning the petitioners with immediate effect for carrying out Methyl Bromide (MBr) and Aluminum Phosphide (ALP) fumigation treatments as per NSPMs 12 and 22.

2. The petitioners have been running a business of Pest Management and Fumigation Services since 2005. The petitioners have all the statutory requirements including trade license and accreditation number issued by the Plant Protection Advisor.

3. On 12th January, 2018, the CBI initiated a Case being R.C. Case No.

0102018A0001 of 2018 for the offence under Section 120B/467/ 468/471/and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7/12/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against some persons including the petitioner no. 2. The petitioner no.2 was also arrested in connection with the said case on 23rd December, 2021 and on 3rd January, 2022, he was released on bail.

4. On 14th January, 2025, the respondent no. 4 issued the impugned order on the recommendation of the Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Kolkata.

5. Mr. Pratik Dhar, Learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioners submits that the impugned order is issued by the respondent no. 4 without giving any show cause notice or any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He submits that as per Clause 2.5 of the NSPM-12 (Guidelines for Assessment, Audit and Accreditation of Fumigation Agencies for Undertaking Methyl Bromide Fumigation) a show cause is mandatory but the respondents have not issued any show cause notice to the petitioners before issuance of the impugned order.

6. Mr. Dhar submits that as per Clause 2.5 of NSPM-12, blacklisting is permissible only in the event of suspension thrice or more within last five years but in the case of the petitioners, the petitioners were never been suspended. He submits that the respondents have issued the impugned order on the basis of the recommendation of the CBI but the copy of recommendation was not served to the petitioners.

7. Mr. Dhar submits that the respondents have issued the impugned order in violation of natural justice and in violation of their own guidelines (NSPM-12). He further submits that the respondents have issued the impugned order on the basis of the recommendation of the CBI as a criminal case is pending against the petitioners but the authorities failed to appreciate that unless the charges are not proved against the petitioners, it cannot be said that the petitioners are guilty of the alleged offences.

8. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dhar has relied upon the following judgments:

i. Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2021) 1 SCC 804.

ii. M/s Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd.

Vs. State of West Bengal and Another reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70.

iii. Raghunath Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (1989) 1 SCC 229.

iv. Southern Painters Vs. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Another reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 699.

v. Daffodils Pharmaceutics Limited and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2020) 18 SCC 550.

vi. S. Ganesan Vs. Rama Raghuraman and Others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 83.

vii. Narendra Singh and Another Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2004) 10 SCC 699.

viii. Helax Healthcare Private Limit