JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE INPUTS DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE CHEPAUK MADRAS Vs. BHARAT PULVARISING MILLS LIMITED MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals involve consideration of a common issue and, as a matter of fact, submissions have been made in common. The main judgement in the Writ Petitions has been rendered in W.P. No. 380 of 1991, against which W.A. No. 790 of 1993 has been filed by the Department. As a matter of fact, in the other cases, the learned Single Judge has simply followed the judgement rendered in W.P. No. 380 of 1991 and allowed the Writ Petitions. Therefore, for a proper appreciation of the various issues raised, the facts in W.A. No. 790 to 1993 may be referred to in some detail.

(2.) W.A. No. 790 of 1993 has been filed by the Department against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19-6-1992 in W.P. No. 380 of 1991, allowing the Writ Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for and quash the proceedings of the 2nd appellant bearing No. PPS. 7.212993/90, dated 13-12-1990, confirming the order of the 1st appellant bearing No. PPs. 7.212993/89, dated 6-11-1990. The Agricultural Officer (Quality Control), Office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Kumbakonam was said to have drawn pesticides sample viz., Monocrotophos 36% from the private dealer Thiru M. Kumar, Kumbakonam on 7-8-1989. The said Chemical was manufactured by M/s Bharat Pulverising Mills Limited, Madras (respondent herein). The sample drawn appears to have been sent to the Assistant Agricultural Chemist (PTL), Aduthurai on 8-8-1989 and after completing the analysis on 28-8-1989 under Lab. No. 704, an analytical report was said to have been sent to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Kumbakonam in a reference dated 28-8-1989, by the Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Aduthurai. The report indicated that the sample failed in volume contents test. The actual volume measure was said to be only 238 ML. Hence, the sample was declared as "mis-branded". The 1st appellant issued a show cause notice dated 4-9-1990, calling upon the respondent to show cause why suitable action should not be initiated under the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968, for the manufacture of Mis-branded chemical. While acknowledging the receipt of the show-cause notice, the respondent submitted an explanation that the net content declared on the label is the nominal content and in actual practice it is not possible to pack in each container the exact quantity as stated on the label and that this fact has been recognised and tolerant limits for different kinds of commodities have been prescribed under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977. Since the explanation of the respondent was not found acceptable and convincing, it was considered that mis-branding in volume was also done and, therefore, there was no merit in the stand taken for the respondent. In such circumstances, the 1st appellant ordered that the manufacturing Licence No. 9/72 be suspended from manufacturing Monocrotophos 36% chemical for a period of ten days from 16-12-1990 to 25-12-1990. The respondent was also informed in the very order that as per the Government Notification dated 23-3-1977, the Director of Agriculture is the appellate authority and the appeal, if any may be filed within one month.

(3.) The respondent has filed an appeal before the 2nd appellate and the appellate authority felt that Rule 19 of the Insecticides Rules which elaborated the "labeling" of the insecticide containers necessarily involves the noting on the label "net volume" and as per Rule 24(2) of the Rules, the insecticides Analysts are empowered to test the ingredients as stated in the label. On that view the plea of the respondent that quantitative measurement is outside the purview of the Insecticides Act was not accepted. Likewise, the appellate authority also rejected the further plea raised on behalf of the appellant that the Insecticides Rules do not contemplate Analysts measuring Insecticides. As for the plea of the respondent that the measurement of quality should be done in the manufacturer's premises and that analysis with reference to volume is not to be determined by a single sample, it was held by the appellate authority that the Insecticides Act is an independent legislation with various regulatory provisions as well for enforcement and that even after taking into account the tolerant limits under the other Act, which provided for a maximum permissible limit of 9 ML, the sample drawn could not be said to be perfect since it contained only 238 ML as against 241 ML. Hence, the appellate authority rejected the appeal, by confirming the order of the said licensing authority. Aggrieved, W.P. No. 380 of 1991 has been filed in this Court.