The authority lacked statutory power to cancel a registration after issuing a suspension, thus violating procedural norms of the governing order.

Headnote:(A) Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985 - Provisions concerning suspension and cancellation of fertilizer registration - The authority exceeded its power by revisiting a suspension decision to issue a cancellation order without statutory backing. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 8, 9)

(B) Writ jurisdiction - Petitioners are permitted to challenge orders despite alternative statutory remedies, as substantial questions of authority are at stake. (Paras 4, 6)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners engaged in fertilizer manufacturing challenged the cancellation of their registrations based on a flawed administrative order issued after a stock inspection.

Findings of Court:
The impugned order cancelling the registration is set aside due to the authority's lack of power to issue such a cancellation after previously opting for a suspension.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the validity and authority behind the cancellation order and whether the authority could reverse a prior suspension.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authority's action to cancel registration post-suspension was unjustified as it violated the procedural provisions of the governing order, demonstrating a lack of statutory power to revisit decisions.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; orders set aside.

Table of Content
1. writ petitions regarding fertilizer registration. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners' arguments against penalties. (Para 3 , 4)
3. consideration of statutory remedies. (Para 5 , 6)
4. authority's power to cancel registration. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.8170/2023, 8479/2023, 8483/2023, 8484/2023, 8505/2023, 8534/2023, 8587/2023, 8666/2023, 8676/2023, 8685/2023, 8702/2023, 8713/2023, 8775/2023, 8791/2023, 8802/2023, 8831/2023, 8838/2023, 8924/2023 & 10450/2023]

These writ petitions have been instituted by the respective petitioners, who are stated to be engaged in the manufacture of fertilizer mixtures, regulated under the provisions of the Fertiliser(Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Order’).

2. For ease of reference, the facts and circumstances of the case as borne out of W.P.(C) No.8170 of 2023 is referred to:-

The petitioners contend that they were carrying on their business activity based on the registration issued by the State Government. An inspection was carried out in the premises of the petitioners on 01.02.2023. On the basis of the details obtained at the time of inspection, proceedings were taken against the respective petitioners. By Ext.P7 order dated 15.02.2023, issued by the 3^rd respondent herein, noticing the difference which was existing between the physical stock and the stock as per the stock register, which is stated to be a violation under Clause 31(1) of the Order, the State Licensing Authority has decided to 'suspend' the registration issued to the respective petitioners for a period of fifteen days with effect from 15.02.2023, further directing the respective petitioners to strictly comply with instructions given during the hearing and also to rectify the defects noticed. The petitioners state that on 28.02.2023, the 3^rd respondent has issued Ext.P8 communication, cancelling the registration issued to them. It is seeking to challenge the cancellation as above, that the respective petitioners have filed the captioned writ petitions.

3. I have heard Sri. P.K.Sureshkumar, the learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Bhavana Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Sri.S. Ranjith, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents herein.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the impugned order at Ext.P8 is flawed for more than one reason. According to him, the order at Ext.P8 has been issued on the basis of a direction issued by the Central Government, as has been indicated by the last paragraph of the impugned order. He would further point out that in any event, since the original decision seeking to impose a punishment of suspension for a period of 15 days has already been taken on 15.02.2023, the 3^rd respondent had no power or authority to revisit the same by issuing Ext.P8, deciding to cancel the registration. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader would point out that the respective petitioners have an alternate remedy under the provisions of Clause 32A of the Order. He would also point out that Clause 31 also speaks about cancellation of the registration, and hence the 3^rd respondent was justified in issuing the impugned orders.

5. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records.

6. The first issue arising for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners are to be relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal under Clause 32A of the order. True, the learned Government Pleader is justified in contending that the Order, 1985 provides for a remedy of appeal. But here, it has been pointed out by the respective petitioners that the 3^rd respondent has acted without authority of law, since he revisited Ext.P7 while issuing Ext.P8. Since such a contention has been taken, which goes to the root of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are to be permitted to challenge Ext.P8 through these writ petitions.

7. The larger issue arising fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document