SHAIBYA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by petitioner Smt. Shaibya Shukla alleging to be in public interest keeping in view the provisions of Art. 51 A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has by this writ petition sought for the following relief:- the writ, order or direction in the nature of writ certierari quashing the tender notice dated 2-6-90, contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition as well as for quashing of annexure-2, 4 and 5 to the writ petition dated 9-1-91, 15-1-91 and 8-2-91 respectively. The petitioner has further sought writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite-parties 1 to 3 not to sell chemically treated Soyabean seed as per notice dated 2-6-90 (annexure-1). The petitioner has further sought a writ of mandamus directing the opposite-party No. 5 not to buy 6339.65 quintals of chemically treated Soyabean seed and for such other reliefs as may be deemed just and proper.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that opposite-party No. 3 Deputy Director, Agriculture, Jhansi Mandal issued a tender notice contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition for calling tenders for the purpose of auction of chemically treated Soyabean seed and in pursuance of the notice dated 2-6-90, tenders were offered by opposite-parties 4 and 5. The tender rate offered by opposite-party No. 4 was Rs. 501.00 per quintal while the tender rate offered by opposite-party No. 5 i.e. the Managing Director Co-operative Federation was Rs. 605.00 per quintal for processing at their factory i.e. M/s. Soyabean Vanaspati Industries, Haldwani. The Director of Agriculture opposite-party No. 2 by letter dated 15-1-91 (annexure-4) to the writ petition directed that the Soyabean seed be disposed of at the rate of Rs. 605.00 per quintal to the provincial Co-operative Federation, opposite-party No. 5 in accordance with the directions of the State Government and in pursuance of the orders of the Director dated 15-1-91. The Joint Director Agriculture (Extension) directed the officials working under opposite-party No. 3 at Jhansi, Jalaun, Hamirpur, Banda and Lalitpur to contact the officials of the Provincial Co-operative Federation and get the quantity of chemically treated Soyabean mentioned in the orders disposed of as has been referred to and mentioned in annexure-1. The petitioner in this petition, has asserted vide paragraph 11 of the writ petition that officials of opposite party No. 5 were not prepared to give an affidavit to the effect that the purchased Soyabean seeds would not be used for processing commodity for human consumption. The petitioner further asserted that the petitioner has got reasons to believe that opposite-party No. 4 has also made an offer to lift chemically treated soyabean locally at the rate of Rs. 605.00 per quintal i.e. the price which has been offered by Provincial Co-operative Federation. The petitioner, in this petition, has alleged that to the best of petitioner's knowledge the Soyabean in question has not been lifted either by opposite-party No. 4 or 5 and if it is lifted by either of them or any other factory which will process it to make edible oil, food or feeds for human or cattle consumption, it may result in great human miseries and may also result in the loss of human life and health as well as life of animals, as well as may result in paralysis. The petitioner further averred with reference to annexures-1 and 7 to the writ petition that 6339.65 quintals of soyabean seeds in question sought to be sold by opposite-parties l to 3 is chemically treated soyabean which has been declared unsuitable for human consumption and if the opposite-parties 1 to 3, according to the petitioner are allowed to sell such contaminated or adulterated food in the market, the same is likely to create health hazards and the same is likely to be misused by them by being mixed with other edible food stuff as well as by processing it to produce oil and other food stuff to be consumed by human beings which may also include the petitioner. The petitioner in this connection has tried to take shelter and assistance of the provisions of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. As has been mentioned earlier that petitioner having felt aggrieved by annexures-1, 2, 4 and 5 having been apprehensive of the likely consequences of soyabean in question i.e. chemically treated soyabean being sold to opposite-party No. 5 as well as to others who deal in food stuff seed or oil and the articles produced in which oil is being used the sale of chemically treated soyabean is likely to create great hazards. The petitioner keeping in view the letters and spirit of Art. 51A of the Constitution of India has preferred this writ petition for the reliefs mentioned in the earlier part of this order.

(3.) Notice of this petition on behalf of opposite-parties 1 to 3 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel but no counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of opposite-parties 1 to 3. On behalf of opposite party No. 4 Shri Mohd. Abid Ali, an Advocate of this Court has put in appearance. Along with Shri Abid Ali Shri T. R. Singh, Jaipal Singh and Syed Husain Mehdi have also put in appearance and filed their power along with a counter-affidavit on 22-8-91. Notice on behalf of opposite-party No. 5 i.e. Managing Director, Provincial Co-operative Federation has been accepted by Shri A. K. Tewari, on 11-3-91 but the counter-affidavit appears to have been filed on behalf of opposite-party, No. 5 challenging the petitioner's assertion. On behalf of petitioner rejoinder-affidavit has been filed on 7-10-1991. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the State as well as Shri Mohd. Abid Ali representing opposite-party No. 4.