PULARI AGRO SOLUTIONS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28303 of 2018 is the appellant herein, challenging judgment of the Single Judge, dated 12.7.2019. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition.

(2.) Ext.P2 series applications submitted by an employee of the writ petitioner which is a partnership firm, under Clause 8(2) of the Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1985 as well as Ext.P3 series applications submitted by the very same employee under Rule 10(1) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, were rejected by the 3 rd respondent through Exts.P4 and P4(a) orders, which were under challenge in the writ petition. In both the impugned orders, the applications were rejected by assigning the very same reason that, the applicant already holds a licence under the respective statutes. The petitioner had raised a basic contention that, the possession of one licence under the above said statutes will not debar the applicant from obtaining the respective licences, with respect to other depots at different places. The respondents filed detailed counter affidavit contending that, Rule 10(2) of the Insecticides Rules insist upon that, either the applicant should possess the qualification stipulated under Rule 10(1A) or he/she has to employ a person having the said qualification. It is stated that, in the present case it is not clear as to whether the applicant, Mrs.Aswathy Mohanan, is an employee of the writ petitioner-firm and that no documents are forthcoming to show that she is the person engaged by the firm as an employee possessing the requisite qualification. With respect to the applications submitted under Clause 8(4) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, it was contended that, Mrs.Aswathy Mohanan had filed applications with respect to 16 depots at various places seeking licences for stocking and sale of fertilizer and insecticides. According to the respondents, it is a suspicious situation which will go against the objective behind prescribing specific qualifications for the licencees. It was pointed out that, the prescription of specific qualification or the insistence for employment of persons with technical qualification, is a situation akin to issue of licence to a Pharmacist to run a Medical Store, wherein such person will be responsible for disbursing correct medicines as prescribed by the Medical Practitioners. In such situation, if a single person is granted more than one licence, the same will go against the purpose and objective of the statute and that it will lead to possibility of misuse of the insecticides/ fertilizers, is the contention raised. According to the respondents, the restrictions are imposed to ensure welfare of the people and to maintain ecological balance by preventing excessive usage of insecticides/fertilizers. It is contended that in order to give effect to the legislative intention in imposing such restrictions, the multiple applications submitted by Mrs.Aswathy Mohanan were rejected on a finding that she was already holding Ext.P1 licence to run a depot at Santhanpara. It is pointed out that, Exts.P4 and P4(a) were issued taking note of the intention of the legislature and therefore it is contended that no interference with the rejection of the applications is warranted in exercise of the power vested on this Court.

(3.) The Single Judge had declined the challenges by upholding contentions raised in the counter affidavit of the respondents, by reiterating that the purpose and objective of the legislation will be defeated if separate licences are issued in respect of each places, wherein availability of a qualified person need to be ensured in order to advice the consumers properly with respect to the commodities they are buying. On interpreting the meaning in substance, gist and tenure of the requirement introduced under relevant statutes, the learned Single Judge observed that, the petitioner had failed to make out a case justifying interference with Exts.P4 and P4(a). Therefore the writ petition was dismissed. It is challenging the said judgment, the above writ appeal is filed.