Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 194 (MAD)

Jayalakshmi Enterprises v. Government of A. P.

1986-04-08

K.RAMASWAMY

body1986
ORDER: 1. The petitioner claims that it obtained a licence on 30.10.1985 under the Insecticides Act, 1968 (Act 46 of 1968) for short “the Act”. It applies for licence on 19.9.1985 and on 23.9.1985, being a auspicious dates, it broke coconuts and one of the ryots kept 12 bottles of “dhanemon” which is one of the insecticides. Subsequently, licence was granted on 30.10.1985. Thereafter, the petitioner did not contravene any of the conditions or the provisions of the Act, but unauthorisedly the 2nd respondent suspended the licence on 3.2.1986 and the goods were seized on 6.2.1986 at 12.30 mid-night, in his absence. The petitioner claims that the goods cannot be confiscated. It also contended that the licence having been granted on 30.10.1985, the seizure cannot be affected unless it contravenes any of the conditions of the licence or the provisions of the Act or the rules thereunder. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to look into the provisions of the Act. Sec. 13(1) and (2) of the Act postulates: 13. Grant of Licence: (1) Any person desiring to manufacture or to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute any insecticide, (or to undertake commercial pest control operations with the use of any insecticide) may make an application to the licensing officer for the grant of a licence; Provided that any person engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling, stocking or exhibiting for sale or distributing any insecticide immediately before the commencement of this section shall make an application to the Licensing Officer for the grant of a licence within a period of (seventeen months) from the date of such commencement; (Provided further that any person engaged in the commercial pest control operations immediately before the commencement of the Insecticides (Amendment) Act, 1977, shall make an application to the licensing officer for the grant of a licence within a period of six months from the commencement of the said Act.) (2) Every application under Sub-sec.(1) shall be made in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. Sec.14(1) of the Act postulates: 14. Revocation, suspension and amendment of licences: (1) If the licensing officer is satisfied, either on a reference made to him in this behalf or otherwise, that-- (a) ………….. Sec.14(1) of the Act postulates: 14. Revocation, suspension and amendment of licences: (1) If the licensing officer is satisfied, either on a reference made to him in this behalf or otherwise, that-- (a) ………….. (b) the holder of a licence has failed to comply with the conditions subject to which the licence was granted or has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, then without prejudice to any other penalty to which the holder of the licence may be liable under this Act, the licensing officer may, after giving the holder of the licence an opportunity of showing cause, revoke or suspend the licence. Then, power of appeal has been granted under Sec.15(1) of the Act which postulates as follows: 15. Appeal against the decision of a licensing officer: (1) Any person aggrieved by a decision of a licensing officer under Sec. 13 (except under the Proviso to Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 14 may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the decision is communicated to him, appeal to such authority in such manner and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed; Provided that the appellate authority may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. 2. The petitioner claims that unless the property is confiscated by operation of Sec. 25 (1) of the Act by the Magistrate after conviction, there is no power for the authorities either to seize or suspend the licence. I am unable to agree. A reading of Secs.13(1) , 18(1) and 14(1)(b) would show that every person who desires to sell, stock or exhibit for sale must be in possession of a licence issued and thereafter he is entitled to do the business under the provisions of the Act. If any business is done without any licence, then it would be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Sec. 14(1)(b) provides for suspension of such activity carried on by any person. Sec. 18(1) also provides: 18. Prohibition of sale, etc. If any business is done without any licence, then it would be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Sec. 14(1)(b) provides for suspension of such activity carried on by any person. Sec. 18(1) also provides: 18. Prohibition of sale, etc. of certain insecticides: (1) No person shall, himself or by any person on his behalf, sell, stock or exhibit for sale, distribute, (transport, use or cause to be used) by any worker- (a) any insecticide which is not registered under this Act; (b) any insecticide, the sale, distribution or use of which is for the time being prohibited under Sec. 27; (c) any insecticide, in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder. (2) No person shall, himself or by any person on his behalf, sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute (or use for commercial pest control operations) any insecticide except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under this Act. 3. A reading of these provisions would clearly establish that a person who sells, exhibits or distributes any insecticides without obtaining a licence, is contravening the provisions of the Act, for such a contravention which is an offence, there is power under Sec.14(1)(b) to suspend any such licence. It is admitted that he started business and exhibited for sale of insecticides. Therefore it is an offence and a contravention. Under these circumstances, the suspension of the licence cannot be said to be without authority of law. 4. It is next contended that the confiscation is allegal. The petitioner is under misapprehension. Confiscation would arise only in the event of conviction by the Magistrate for an offence under Sec. 25 of the Act. Under Sec. 21 of the Act, the authority is given power to enter and search at all reasonable times any premises. Under Sec. 22(1), the authorities have also power to seize the insecticides. Therefore, the Act itself empowers, the Insecticides Inspector to enter and search any place at all reasonable times and then on his reasonable belief that an offence under the Act or the Rules thereunder has or is being or is about to commit then under Sec.22(1)(b), the Insecticides Inspector is empowered to seize the stock of insecticides and he shall inform the same to the Magistrate and take his orders as to the custody thereof. The record has been placed before me. The record shows that the Insecticides Inspector seized the stock under a panchanama in the presence of the mediators and he immediately informed the 1st Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali in that regard on 7.2.1986 and sought his permission for the safe custody of the seized stock. Under these circumstances, the seizure also cannot be said to be illegal. 5. Having regard to the allegations made by the petitioner against the officers, it is not desirable that any enquiry as contemplated under Sec. 14(1) is to be made. But, however, there shall be a direction to the respondents to file the charge-sheet within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, and the Magistrate is directed to try the case as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months thereafter. For the interim disposal of the goods seized, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate and seek appropriate directions in that regard. The action to cancel the licence would depend on the result of the case. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs.150. Order accordingly.