##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

107 CM-9088-LPA-2025 in/and

LPA-3686-2025 (O&M)

Decided on : 19.12.2025

THE STATE OF PUNJAB ...Appellant

Versus

M/S MADHYA BHARAT AGRO PRODUCTS LTD.

. . . Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

PRESENT: Mr. TPS Chawla, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

CM-9088-LPA-2025

The prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay

of 240 days in filing the present appeal (LPA-3686-2025 ).

Keeping in view the averments enumerated in the application,

which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Consequently,

the delay of 240 days in filing the present appeal (LPA-3686-2025S) is

condoned.

LPA-3686-2025

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated

21.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 3863 of

2025, by which, the respondent-company which had manufactured the DAP

1 of 9

::: Downloaded on - 12-01-2026 14:12:12 :::

2

CM-9088-LPA-2025 in/and

LPA-3686-2025 (O&M)

Fertilizer, sample of which was taken by the State for testing, has been given

an opportunity to get the third part of sample tested from Central Fertilizer

Quality Control and Training Institute, Faridabad before any action is taken

under the Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control)Order, 1985

( herein after referred to as ‘the 1985 order’).

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the process of

testing the sample taken has to be conducted as per the Clause 28 (b) (3)

and Clause 32 A (3) and (4) of the 1985 order and it is only that in case, the

sample is drawn from the company, the notice is to be issued to the

manufacturer so as to allow the manufacturer to claim testing of the second

part of sample as well but where the sample is taken from the dealer, it

becomes the duty of the dealer to inform the company i.e. manufacturer so

as to allow the said company to make a request for testing of the second part

of the sample.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that under

Clause 32 A (3) of the 1985 order even if, the second part of sample has not

been asked for testing still an opportunity has been given to make a request

to the appellate authority for testing of 3^rd part of sample and therefore,

learned Single Judge while recording the findings that in the fact and

circumstances of the present case, the company has been caused prejudice as,

no opportunity for allowing the testing of the second part of the sample has

been allowed is incorrect and the said findings may kindly be set-aside.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone

through the case file with his able assistance.

5. The question of interpretation to the clause 28B (2) and Clause

2 of 9

::: Downloaded on - 12-01-2026 14:12:13 :::

3

CM-9088-LPA-2025 in/and

LPA-3686-2025 (O&M)

32 A (3) (4) of the 1985 order has been put before this Court which has

already been interpreted by the learned Single Judge as to whether the

manufacturer/company is required to be given notice so as to seek

opportunity to seek testing of the second part of sample even when the

sample is drawn from a dealer before any actions envisaged under the

provisions of the order of 1985 are undertaken against the manufacturer as

the ultimate consequence of failing of such sample will be borne by the

manufacturer/company.

6. The relevant Clause 28 B (2) and Clause 32 A (3) & (4) of the

order of 1985 are reproduced hereunder:-

“28 B. Sample drawn by the Inspector

XX XX XX

(2) The company or dealer, from whom sample is drawn may

request to such authority within one week from the date of

drawal of sample, to send the second part of the sample to any

of the National Test House Laboratories on payment of fees as

provided by the Central Government from time to time and in

case, there is variation in the results of the first and second

analysis, then the said authority invariably shall send the third

part of the sample to Central Fertiliser Quality Contro