PANKAJ TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R. K. Pathak Advocate and Sri Bijendra Kumar Mishra Advocate and Ms. Archana Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5. Respondent No. 6 is not a necessary or proper party. This writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage without calling for counter-affidavit.

(2.) VIDE para 9 of the writ petition, it is claimed that the petitioner (Pankaj Tiwari) obtained licence under The Seeds Act, 1966 for running a processing plant. There is no dispute that the said licence was obtained as required under The Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. It is also not disputed that the licence was obtained under Clause 3 of the said Order, 1983 which requires dealers to obtain licence. It is also not disputed that under the aforesaid Order the petitioner filed an application in the prescribed Form 'a'. Under Clause 7 of the said Form A there is a Note which reads "where the business of selling/exporting/importing seeds is intended to be carried on at more than one place, a separate licence should be obtained for each such place. " The petitioner has not filed even a copy of the said application and the licence No. 89/8819 dated 13-8-2004. The photostat copies of the same have been placed by Ms. Archana Srivastava Advocate appearing for the contesting respondents. Correctness of these photostat copies has not been challenged and we have no reason to doubt the genuineness and authenticity of these documents. Photo copy of the application shows that one Ashok Tiwari son of Sri Kamlakar Tiwari had filed the application before the District Agriculture Officer, Varanasi for obtaining licence on 11-8-2004. It is also to be noted that in the application signed by Sri Ashok Tiwari on 11-8- 2004 he has categorically mentioned that the applicant wants to purchase and sell (i. e. carry on business) of food grains, Dalhan, Tilhan, all vegetable seeds and fodder seeds within the District of Varanasi. The photo copy of Form A placed before us further shows that there is no mention of any other place for carrying on business below the Note mentioned under Clause 7. Photo copy of the licence No. 89/8819 placed before us clearly indicates that the licence was granted to sell seeds within the District of Varanasi. The licensing authority, as per the aforesaid photostat copy, is the District Agriculture Officer, Varanasi.

(3.) WE have carefully considered both the Government notifications dated 4-7-1985 and 7-12-1995. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is not sustainable and the petitioner is stopped from raising such arguments. It is to be noted that the licence was obtained by Ashok Tiwari on 13-8-2004 from the District Agriculture Officer, Varanasi. If we accept the contention of the petitioner that the notification dated 7-12-1995 revoked the power of the District Agriculture Officer after its Gazette notification whereby the Joint Director Agriculture (Seeds and Farms) U. P. was authorised for granting licence for the entire State of U. P. or for a part of it, then this licence issued by the District Agriculture Officer in favour of Ashok Tiwari itself was a nullity and it was without jurisdiction and so neither Ashok Tiwari nor the petitioner can claim any right on the basis of this licence.