SESHAIAH NEW COMPANY AND OTHERS Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions are all dealer licensees under the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968. On the ground that they have misbranded their products and sold them to customers either directly or through their agents or through other dealers, they had been served with show cause notices. In some cases their licences were cancelled after considering their explanations, and some other writ petitions have been filed against the show cause notices. But the basic facts are more or less same in all these writ petitions. The questions of law which fall for consideration are identical. I, therefore, examine the facts in Writ Petition No. 16939 of 1987 as representative of all the cases.

(2.) The petitioner is a dealer and distributor who had obtained a licence under Sec. 13 of the Insecticides Act 1960. In the course of his business, he had sold an insecticide product called 'Phosphomindon' which had been labelled to show as containing 85 percent of active ingredient to several dealers including one Navayuga Traders. Dachepalli. Guntur District. He sold those goods under Invoice No. 135 dated 31-7-i987. He received those goods from his manufacturer under Batch No. 349 in the month of March, 1987. The Insecticides Inspector had drawn from the said Navayuga Traders samples of the aforesaid insecticide 'Phosphomidon' and got it chemically analysed. Chemical analysis was conducted by the Agricultural Officer of the Office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Guntur. According to that test, the sample which branded to contain 85% of'Phosphomidon' had get only 76.45% of 'Phosphomidon'. On the basis of that chemical analysis, a show cause notice had been given on 23-9-87 to Navayuga Traders to show cause why suitable section should not be taken against Navayuga Trader. On 23-9-87 Navayuga Traders gave their explanation pleading that the writ petitioner supplied to their company the particular insecticide. Thereupon a show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner under Sec. 14 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 to show cause as to why the licence granted to the writ petitioner under Sec. 13 read with Rule 10 of the Insecticides Rules 1971, should not be cancelled. In reply to that notice, the writ petitioner asked for copy of the analysis report to be given to the writ petitioner and got the same through Writ Petition No. 146788 of 1987. That Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court of 16-10-1987 with a direction to the authorities to supply to the petitioner a copy of the chemical analysis report. On receipt of the analysis report which was the result of analysis conducted by the Agricultural Officer, Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Guntur, and which showed misbranding but found seals to be in tact, the petitioner submitted its explanation on 20-10-1987. The explanation of the petitioner was rejected and on the same day the petitioner's licence was suspended under section 14(l)(b) of the Act. Thus the petitioner's licence which was valid upto 9-5-1989 had come to be suspended on 20-10-1987. On 23-10-1987 the petitioner filed an appeal wider Sec. 15 of the Act. The appellate authority, who is the Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, by his proceedings dated 3-11-1987 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Joint Director of Agriculture dated 20-10-1987. The present Writ Petition was filed on 9-11-1987 against the aforesaid orders. The petitioner had obtained an interim direction from this court permitting the petitioner to carry on trading activity in insecticides except in 'Phosphomidon'. In this Writ Petition, the prayer is to puash the order of the appellate authority dated 3-11-1987, confirming the order of the primary authority dt. 20-10-87.

(3.) In support of this Writ Petition, the following submissions were advanced by Sri Sudhakar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner.