Telangana High Court
WP/24592/2002 of M/s.Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt Ltd., Vs The commissioner AND Director of agriculture, on 29 December 2008
MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24592 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner undertakes distribution of insecticides and pesticides. Samples of Metalaxyl 8% and Mancozeb 64% from W.P.Batch No.KMZ-108, manufactured in July, 2002, were drawn by the Agricultural Officer, Ieeza, Mahabubnagar
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.24592 of 2002
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 petitioner undertakes distribution of insecticides andpesticides. Samples of Metalaxyl 8% and Mancozeb 64% fromW.P.Batch No.KMZ-108, manufactured in July, 2002, were drawn by theAgricultural Officer, Ieeza, Mahabubnagar District, on 24.09.2002. Thesamples were drawn from the distributors of the petitioner. Theproduct was analysed in the Government laboratory and on finding thatthe same were misbranded, a show cause notice was issued to thepetitioner on 02.11.2002. The petitioner submitted explanation on11.11.2002, contesting the allegation against it. On finding that theexplanation offered by the petitioner is not satisfactory, the respondentissued the proceedings, dated 23.11.2002, restraining the petitionerfrom stocking, selling and distributing the product for a period of sixmonths. This was said to be an interim measure under Section 35 ofthe Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’). The same is challengedin this Writ Petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedGovernment Pleader for Agriculture.
The respondent passed the impugned order under Section 35 ofthe Act. That provision has nothing to do with the power to cancel,suspend or vary the conditions of licence. Obviously, he exercisedpowers under Section 14 of the Act. It empowers the respondent torevoke, suspend or amend the licence. Here again, the suspensionthat can be ordered by the respondent is by way of substantivepunishment, but not as an interim measure. Through the impugnedorder, the suspension was ordered for a period of six months, as aninterim measure. This is outside the scope of provision. Be that as itmay, while admitting the writ petition on 11.12.2002, this Court directedthat the impugned order shall be confined to the two products mentioned therein, that too of the concerned batch. With the passageof time, the batch has virtually become extinct. Therefore, nothingremains to be decided in this Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition is accordingly closed. There shall be no orderas to costs.
_______________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
Dt.29.12.2008GJ