Telangana High Court
WP/28257/2008 of M/s Geolife Organics Vs The Commissioner AND Director of Agriculture on 26 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 28257 of 2008 Between: M/s Geolife Organics ( a partnership Concern) Andheri Kurla Road
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
WRIT PETITION NO : 28257 of 2008
Between:
M/s Geolife Organics (a partnership Concern) Andheri Kurla RoadSakinaka Sakinaka Andheri (West) Mumbai Branch Office at Plot No.54Autonagar Hyderabad Rep.by its Managing Partner Mr Venugopal
..... PETITIONER
AND
The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture Andhra PradeshGunfoundry Hyderabad
.....RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtmay be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other writ order ordirection declaring the action of the respondent in interfering with themanufacturing and sale of the petitioner Bio-Products by issuing MemoNo.PP.II(1)/2085/2005, dated 21-1-2006, and the consequential letterNo.PP.II(I)/2085/2005, dated 21-1-2006, as being illegal arbitraryunconstitutional and without jurisdiction and further direct therespondent not to interfere with in any manner the manufacture saleand distribution of the petitioner's Bio Products inclduing from theLicenced premises of the dealers Stockists under the insecticides act1968 and the Fertilizers Control (Order) act 1985.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR AGRICULTURE
The Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULUWRIT PETITION No.28257 of 2008
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring theaction of the respondent in interfering with the distribution and sale ofthe petitioner’s bio-products as arbitrary, illegal and withoutjurisdiction.
When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counselon either side fairly conceded that the issue involved in this writpetition is squarely covered by an order, dated 25.04.2006, renderedby this Court in WP.No.8207 of 2006 and batch, which were disposedof with the following directions:
“ In view of the fact that no license is requiredunder the Insecticides Act, 1968 for manufacture andsale of bio-products as long as they do not contain anyingredients of insecticide as mentioned in the schedule,i.e., Antagonistic Fungi and Bacteria, respondents cannotinterfere with the store, sale and distribution of bio-products belonging to the petitioners.
It is needless to say if the bio-products contain anychemical or insecticides which endangers theenvironment, it is always open for the concernedauthorities to take appropriate action against thepetitioners-manufacturers and the dealers of the said bio-products, and by the Executive Magistrate in exercise ofpowers under Section 133 of Cr.P.C.”
disputed by the learned Government Pleader.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of theaforesaid order. No order as to costs.
26.12.2008v v
_____________
C.V.RAMULU,J