Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 422 (PAT)

Allied And Chemicals v. State Of Bihar

2008-02-27

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2008
Judgment 1. The petitioner is "aggrieved by the order dated 22.6.2007 (Annexure-1) passed by the Licensing Authority-cum-Joint Director, Agriculture (Plant Protection), Bihar, Patna by which for the reasons stated therein he has cancelled the Insecticides licence. 2. State has filed a counter affidavit and rejoinder has also been filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit. 3. Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 4. Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the writ petition submits that firstly in terms of Section 14 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 before an insecticide licence can be cancelled, the license holder may be given an opportunity of showing cause. In the present case, admittedly, no proceedings were at all initiated much less notice issued and as such the order being in violation of principle of natural justice is void ab initio. He secondly submits that reading the order as a whole, it would appear that there is no specific contravention mentioned therein. It is too vague and uncertain. The order canceling license cannot be uncertain and in vague term. Lastly, he submits that the additional ground now being disclosed in the counter affidavit for cancellation of licence being that it was wrongly granted by the Joint Director, Agriculture (Plant Protection), Bihar, Patna for which petitioner and the then Joint Director were being prosecuted cannot be taken note of as a quas/-judicial order has to stand on its own and cannot be supplemented or supported by reasons given by way of affidavits or otherwise. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the licensing authority having found some discrepancies as to the jurisdiction to grant the licence, cancelled the licence and if the petitioner was aggrieved he could go in appeal. He further submits that as the petitioner carries on business in the entire State of Bihar, the proper licensing authority would be the Director of Agriculture, Bihar,- Patna, whose jurisdiction as per State Governments notification dated 16.9.96 extended to the entire State. The jurisdiction of Joint Director was limited to one or more divisions and as such petitioner has wrongly applied for licence to the Joint Director, who had wrongly granted the licence. 6. In my view, the objection as taken by the State is misconceived and cannot be accepted. 7. The jurisdiction of Joint Director was limited to one or more divisions and as such petitioner has wrongly applied for licence to the Joint Director, who had wrongly granted the licence. 6. In my view, the objection as taken by the State is misconceived and cannot be accepted. 7. Firstly, so far as alternative remedy is concerned, it has been dealt in catena of decisions that where an order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, alternative remedy is no ground to refuse relief in writ jurisdiction. Here, admittedly, the order impugned was passed without notice to the petitioner. This is clearly in conflict with the principle of natural justice and in view of the mandatory provision of Section 14 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 , the order is thus void ab initio on this ground itself. 8. In view of this, it is not necessary to decide the effect of vague and uncertain order. So far as the stand of the State with regard to the jurisdiction of licensing authority is concerned, that is equally misconceived. Section 13 of the Act provides for grant of licence. Application for grant of licence has to be made in the Form prescribed giving particulars contained therein. Form VI is the application Form for grant of licence. A perusal of Form VI would show that though it is in the name of a person it is specifically for a place. It is the premises/place from where business is carrying on and insecticides were stored and stored for sale and for which licence is required. It may be that persons from all over State of Bihar come to petitioners place of business at Jamal Road, Patna to purchase insecticides or people from different parts of Bihar may order insecticide from the petitioner at Jamal Road, Patna. That would not change the position. The premises and the place would be at Patna. The business may extend to the entire area. A person coming from Buxar for buying insecticide cannot be refused sale thereof but that does not mean that the petitioner business extends to Buxar. This is a misconception carried by the authorities. That would not change the position. The premises and the place would be at Patna. The business may extend to the entire area. A person coming from Buxar for buying insecticide cannot be refused sale thereof but that does not mean that the petitioner business extends to Buxar. This is a misconception carried by the authorities. It is the premises, which is licensed and not the territorial area within which the goods of petitioner move, for without moving out from his business premises at Jamal Road, Patna, petitioner can sale insecticide all over Bihar to persons who order either from their respective place or to come from the distant place to purchase from petitioners place. In either case the citus of sale is petitioners place of business at Jamal Road, Patna. Therefore, even though the ground as mentioned in the counter affidavit could not form the basjs for justifying the cancellation, the ground itself is misconceived. The result is that Annexure-1 cannot be sustained on any ground whatsoever and is liable to be quashed and is quashed accordingly. 9. Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner points out that as the license was issued in June, 2007 and it was valid upto 31st December, 2007 no application for renewal was entertainable as before that day the license was cancelled. In my view, as the order cancelling the license has now been set aside, the authority would be bound to entertain the renewal application and grant renewal in accordance with law. 10. The writ petition is thus allowed.