Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/5169/2026 of M/S MAA BEEJ BHANDAR AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS on 22 September 2026
GAHC010200662026 2026:GAU-AS:14163 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5169/2026 M/S MAA BEEJ BHANDAR AND ANR REPRESENTED BY ITS OWNER MINNAT ALI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, SITUATED AT VILLAGE GAGALMARI, P.S. MAYONG, DISTRICT
GAHC010200662026
2026:GAU-AS:14163
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5169/2026
M/S MAA BEEJ BHANDAR AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY ITS OWNER MINNAT ALI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, SITUATED AT VILLAGE GAGALMARI, P.S. MAYONG, DISTRICT
MORIGAON, ASSAM
2: MINNAT ALI
S/O LATE HACHEN ALI
RESIDENT OF GAGALMARI
P.S. MAYONG
DISTRICT MORIGAON
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
ASSAM
DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-781022.
3:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
ASSAM
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
4:THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER/ COMPETENT SEED INSPECTOR
P.O. MORIGAON
DIST MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782105
5:THE VIGOUR BIOTECH PVT LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 308
APOLLO PREMIER
PLOT NO 1
PU4 COMMERCIAL
SCH NO 54
INDORE 452010
MADHYA PRADESH
INDIA
6:MR MAFIDUL ISLAM
SALES MANAGER/ AUTHORIZED PERSON/ MANAGER OF VIGOUR
BIOTECH PVT LTD
R/O BALUGAON
P.O. KHARUPETIAGHAT
P.S. KHARUPETIA
DIST- DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN- 78411
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T U LASKAR, MR. N HOQUE,MR. KHAIRUL ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AGRI. DEPARTMENT, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
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
23.09.2026
Heard Mr. T. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4.
2. The petitioner no. 1 is a proprietorship firm wherein the petitioner no. 2 is the proprietor. It is stated that the petitioner no. 1 is an authorized dealer/distributor of the respondent no. 5 to deal with maize seeds marketed by the respondent no. 5. One of the types of maize seeds is Hybrid Maize Seed Vigour-555 for which the petitioner no. 1 has been appointed as an authorized dealer/distributor by the respondent no. 5. It is further stated that in the Principal Authority Certificate [Annexure-A] issued in favour of the petitioner no. 1 firm by the respondent no. 5 on 30.06.2025, the maize seed of type Vigour-555 is mentioned as a non-notified authority.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners purchased 425 bags of Hybrid Maize Seed Vigour-555, each bag containing 4 kgs, as per an Invoice dated 29.08.2025 [Annexure- C]. The petitioners had thereafter, sold 75 percent of the purchased Hybrid Maize Seed Vigour-555 to small and marginal farmers of different villages. After sowing the Hybrid Maize Seed Vigour-555, several farmers started complaining about poor germination which had, in turn, resulted in monetary loss to the farmers. The petitioners were reported that germination of the seeds was only about 35% to 40%.
4. It is in such fact situation, the petitioners returned 25% of the unused stock of Hybrid Maize Seed Vigour-555, worth about Rs. 20,00,000/-, to the respondent no. 6, who is a Sales Manager of the respondent no. 5.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that complaining about poor germination of the seeds due to poor quality of Hybrid Maize Seed Vigour-555 sold to the petitioners by the respondent no. 5, the petitioners submitted a complaint before the respondent no. 4 on 13.08.2026. Raising a grievance that the respondent no. 4 has not acted upon the said complaint dated 13.08.2026, the petitioners are before this Court seeking inter alia a direction to the respondent nos. 2 to 5 to consider and act upon the petitioners’ complaint dated 13.08.2026 and to conduct investigation / inquiry concerning the Hybrid Maize Seed Vigour-555 supplied to the petitioners by the respondent no. 5, by collecting samples in accordance with Section 14 and Section 15 of the Seeds Act, 1966.
6. From the facts projected and the Principal Authority Certificate [Annexure-A], it can be seen that the petitioner no. 1 firm has been appointed as an authorized dealer / distributor of the respondent no. 5, which is a private company having license to carry on business of dealing in seeds.
7. As per sub-section 2[c] of the Seeds [Control] Order, 1983, ‘dealer’ means a person carrying a business of selling exporting or importing seeds and includes e-marketer and an agent of a dealer and e-marketer. As per sub-section [1] of Section 3, no person shall carry on the business of selling, exporting or importing seeds at any place except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license granted to him under the Seeds [Control] Order.
8. As per the License issued to the respondent no. 5, annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-B, the License is subject to the provisions of Seeds [Control] Order, 1983. By the License dated 21.03.2024 [Annexure-B], the respondent no. 5 has been authorized to carry on business as a licensee to sell, export/import and or store the list of seeds at and from the specific place of Balugaon, District – Darrang. The petitioners are from the district of Morigaon. The respondent no. 5 as such Licencee has not been authorized to appoint any authorized dealer or distributor under the Seeds [Control] Order, 1983. The relationship between the petitioner farm and the respondent no. 5, which is a licencee under the Seeds [Control] Order, 1983, can at best be of an agent and the dealer. Therefore, their relationship is governed by law of agency.
9. Having found no public law element involved in this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant