(1.) in these writ petitions, the petitioners, essentially question the validity of Section 3 of kamataka cotton control Act, 1964, ('the State Act' for short) and the notification dated 7-4-1972 issued by the state government under the said Section 3. Petitioners also seek a declaration that the said notification does not prohibit the trade or use of cotton, cotton seeds of varieties other than those specified in the said notification. Another relief sought is for a direction to the state government to finalise a draft notification issued on 2-6-1988; since this has been done, petitioners are now questioning the final notification No. 439 dated 20-8-1989, which in effect makes an addition to the earlier notification dated 7-4-1972.
(2.) petitioners contend that the subject legislated by the State Act has be ensubsequently covered by the legislation enacted by the parliament as per the Central Act called the seeds Act, 1966. According to the petitioners the Provisions of the State Act are repugnant to the Provisions of the Central Act and therefore the State Act to the extent of repugnancy becomes unenforceable and void. It is further contended that several varieties of cotton seeds are covered by the Provisions of the seeds act and therefore the petitioners are entitled to use the said seeds subject to specifying the conditions laid down by the Provisions of the seeds act and the state is not competent to impose any restrictions as to the user of those cotton seeds. The Provisions of the State Act are also challenged as violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as imposing an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The impugned notification of the year 1972 issued under the Provisions of the State Act fixes the variety of cotton seed or seedling as the permitted varieties for cultivation in the local area specified in the relevant entries of the table to the said notification. At the same time the notification prohibits cultivation of any variety of cotton, cottonseed or seedling other than those specified in the relevant column of the table in the specified local areas. Similarly it prohibits mixing any one variety of cotton, cotton seed or seedling specified in the table with any other variety of cotton, cotton seed or seedling specified therein, etc. There is also a prohibition against possession, use or trade in any variety of cotton, cotton seed or seedling specified in column (iii) of the table mixed with any other variety of cotton, cotton seed or seedling specified therein, etc. The table of the notification divides the state into four localities. Certain varieties of cotton are specified against each of the local areas, thus the user of the variety of cotton, cotton seed or seedling by way of cultivation or for the purpose of mixing are prescribed by the notification. Similarly, the possession, use or trade also is restricted. Cultivation, mixing up of, possession, use or trade in any variety of cotton, cotton seed or seedling not specified against a particular area, is thus not permitted. According to the petitioners the notification of the year 1972 has ignored several varieties of cotton seeds recognised under the Provisions of the seeds act and therefore the notification was unenforceable, either because the main act under which it is issued is unconstitutional or because the notification itself imposes an unreasonable restriction on the rights of the petitioners. A contention was also addressed that there has been non-application of mind to the relevant matters while considering the draft notification issued in the year 1988 wherein six more varieties were proposed as permitted varieties for inclusion in the earlier notification of the year 1972. Though six varieties were mentioned in this draft notification of the year 1988, ultimately only one variety called dch-32 was permitted to be used in the whole state of karnataka.
(3.) the state contended that the purpose and effect of the State Act are differentf rom objectives of the seeds act and in no way there is any conflict between the two enactments and therefore question of repugnancy does not arise between the two legislations. The object of the State Act is to provide for regulating and prohibiting the cultivation of any specified variety of cotton, mixing up of any specified variety of cotton, cotton seed or seedling with any other variety of cotton, cotton seed or seedling and the possession or use of or trade in any specified variety of cotton, cotton seed or seedling in the state. While the purpose of the seeds act is to regulate the quality of certain seeds for sale and for matters connected therewith. The dominant purpose of the State Act is to regulate the production of the cotton and in that process safeguard the interest of the farmers as well as that of the traders in cotton and cotton seeds. In paragraph 16 of the statement of objections, while referring to dch-32 cotton seeds it is said.