LAKSHMI CHEMICALS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner has come to this Court for quashing the appellate order dated 2.6.2008 (Annexure -1) passed by the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar as also for quashing the order dated 19.3.2008 (Annexure -2 ) passed by the Director, Agriculture, Bihar, by which the licence granted to the petitioner under Section 13 of the Insecticides Act for manufacture of insecticides has been cancelled and further for consequential directions. The facts relevant for consideration of the present matter are that the petitioner was granted licence/provisional permission to manufacture insecticides on 20.3.1978 and since then the said licence has continued to be renewed from time to time and a number of insecticides have continued to be added in the said licence and ultimately, according to the petitioner, it was entitled to manufacture as many as 38 items. On 27.7.2007, an inspection was made at the premises of the petitioner 'sfactory and the inspection report was prepared, in which certain irregularities and discrepancies were noted. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 1.10.2007 was issued to the petitioner by the Director, Agriculture in which the violation of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Insecticides Rules, 1971 was delineated on as many as 14 counts.

(2.) The petitioner replied to the said show cause on 4.12.2007. In the meantime, the Inspection Team headed by the Joint Director, Agriculture submitted a report on 30.7.2007, in which the recommendation was made on the basis of findings made during the course of the inspection for renewal of the licence of the petitioner. By letter dated 31.7.2000 (Annexure -13), the Joint Director, Agriculture enclosing the said report wrote to the Director, Agriculture for taking further steps for the renewal of the licence of the petitioner. However, by the impugned order dated 19.3.2008 after mentioning that in the course of the inspection on 27.7.2007, nine discrepancies were found and further holding that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory, the licence of the petitioner was cancelled. Against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Secretary, Agriculture, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 2.6.2008 taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had been operating its business without licence after December, 2004, which was in utter violation of the relevant provisions of the Insecticides Act and for the said reasons, the order of the Director was confirmed and the representation of the petitioner was rejected.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that as many as 14 charges were mentioned in the show cause issued on 1.10.2007 which were duly replied by the petitioner, but the Director, Agriculture in his order dated 19.3.2008 cancelling the licence of the petitioner has mentioned 9 grounds against the petitioner out of which three grounds, namely, ground Nos. 2, 6 and 8 respectively were non - existent in the original show cause according to the petitioner. It is stated that no show cause was asked from the petitioner regarding the discrepancies found in the quantity of chemicals and the Stock Register. It is further submitted that there was no allegation regarding the employees not being medically examined within the prescribed period, nor there was any allegation that the samples as collected by the Inspection Team were found to be not as per the standard. With respect to the last ground, it is submitted that the petitioner was subsequently informed about the samples being not found according to standard, against which a protest had been made and the second packet of the sealed samples collected on the date were sent for re - testing to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad, which by its report dated 16.4.2008 has held that the sample conforms to the relevant specifications in the test conducted. It is, thus, submitted that ground no.8 in the impugned order is contrary to the facts and becomes non est on account of the subsequent report of re -testing. With respect to ground No. 6, learned Counsel points to Annexure -17, which shows that all the employees were medically examined in each quarter and the reports were duly certified by a qualified Doctor. This, according to the learned Counsel, also belies the finding given regarding the proper documents not being maintained regarding quarterly medical examination of the employees.