WP/11636/2010 of Dwara Rama Krishna Vs The Municipal Corporation of Rajahmundry on 30 December 2010

COMMON ORDER:

These batch of cases arise out of a common cause, therefore, allthese writ petitions are clubbed together and being disposed of by thiscommon order.

2. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging theaction of the respondent, viz., Commissioner and Director of Agriculture,A.P. Hyderabad, in interfering with their business inmanufacturing/marketing the bio-products by issuing Memo No.PP.II(1)2085/2005, dated 21.01.2006 and Letter No.PP.II(1)2085/2005, dated21.01.2006, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently to forbear therespondent from interfering with their business activities in dealing withthe bio-products.

3. The petitioners are manufacturers/marketers of bio-productssuch as Amino Acids, See Weed, Extracts, Enzymes etc., with variousbrand names. They claim that the said bio-products are manufacturedwithout using any toxic chemicals and are useful to enrich the soil andensure protection of land/crops from viral, bacterial, fungus and otherinfections, resulting in more production. According to the petitioners, theproducts manufactured by them are not covered either under theInsecticides Act, 1968 or Fertilizer Control (Order) Act, 1985. Therefore,there is no obligation on them to obtain licences under the said Acts formanufacturing/marketing the bio-products. Hence it is their case that therespondent has no jurisdiction to interfere with their business activities indealing with the bio-products under the guise of the impugned Memo and the letter.

4. I considered this issue, which fell for consideration inW.P.No.17811 of 2011 and batch, dated 28.6.2011 and taking intoconsideration the facts and circumstances the said writ petitions weredisposed of with certain directions.

5. All the learned counsel appearing in these cases submit thatthis batch of cases is squarely covered by the said orders and thelearned counsel while consenting submit that the same order be passedin these cases also.

6. Having regard to the said submission, the following comprehensive directions are issued:

a)The petitioners shall submit a sample of 5 kgs., of each productdealt with by them together with the corresponding literaturethrowing light upon the manufacturing process as well as thecontents thereof together with the composition/components of theproducts to the respondent herein.dealt with by them together with the corresponding literaturethrowing light upon the manufacturing process as well as thecontents thereof together with the composition/components of theproducts to the respondent herein.

b)Each of the petitioners shall remit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupeesfive thousand only) along with the samples to the respondent tomeet the expenses of analysis.five thousand only) along with the samples to the respondent tomeet the expenses of analysis.

c)Within eight weeks form the date of compliance of conditions asindicated in Clauses (a) and (b) by the petitioners, the respondentshall get the same analyzed in a suitable laboratory and intimatethe result of the analysis to the petitioners.indicated in Clauses (a) and (b) by the petitioners, the respondentshall get the same analyzed in a suitable laboratory and intimatethe result of the analysis to the petitioners.

d)The petitioners shall also permit the officers authorized by therespondent to collect the samples from the manufacturingunits/sale points.respondent to collect the samples from the manufacturingunits/sale points.

e)The petitioners shall furnish details of their sale points to therespondent for drawal of samples.respondent for drawal of samples.

f)In case, the analysis reveals that the products dealt with by thepetitioners answer the description of the products mentioned inSchedule – III to the Control Order and the Insecticides Act, theyshall be entitled to deal with the products only after obtaininglicence under the Control Orders. On the other hand, if the resultis found otherwise, the petitioners shall not be subjected to theregime under the Control Orders; andpetitioners answer the description of the products mentioned inSchedule – III to the Control Order and the Insecticides Act, theyshall be entitled to deal with the products only after obtaininglicence under the Control Orders. On the other hand, if the resultis found otherwise, the petitioners shall not be subjected to theregime under the Control Orders; and g)If the respondent fails to intimate the result of the analysis withineight (8) weeks from the date of submission of the samples, asindicated above, it shall be open to the petitioners to deal with theproducts, notwithstanding the impugned letter and the memo, aslong as the products are not insecticides or chemicals.eight (8) weeks from the date of submission of the samples, asindicated above, it shall be open to the petitioners to deal with theproducts, notwithstanding the impugned letter and the memo, aslong as the products are not insecticides or chemicals.

7. It is also made clear that in the event the respondent receivesany complaints from the ryots with regard to the quality of the bio-products supplied by the petitioners, it shall be open to the respondent totake necessary action in accordance with law.8. Subject to the above directions, these writ petitions aredisposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________

JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

06.07.2011.Kvr

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

(W.P.No.892 of 2011 and batch)

WRIT PETITION Nos.892, 1052, 1428, 2140, 2169, 2965, 3437, 3662,3669, 5514, 5678, 6796, 7033, 7339, 7471, 7559, 7837, 9158, 9254,9570, 9726, 9774, 10302, 10508, 10589, 11636, 11732, 11760, 11765,11969, 11974, 11984, 12033, 12712, 13000, 13439, 13481, 13484, 13579,15203, 15223, 15240, 15246, 15269, 15454, 15603, 15655, 15698, 15728,15813, 15814, 15873, 15874, 15922, 15928, 15957, 15969, 15991, 16025,16030, 16061, 16062, 16066, 16079, 16137, 16142, 16431, 16489, 16510,16550, 16608, 16626, 16679, 16734, 16822 and 18885 of 2011

KVR

06.07.2011