ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the sale and supply of the petitioners” bio-products like DHANUSH, RAKSHAK, O-FLOWER, O-GOLD, O-PLUS, OSCAR CHILLI SPECIAL, OSCAR COTTON SPECIAL, OSCAR PADDY SPECIAL, REVIVERE, ELIMINATE, WIPER SHINER, RIZER, SENATE, WINNER, EAGLE, BLASTER, FLAME, KOHINOOR, CARONA, SOLO, AMAZER, NEEEMA, MASTER AVID, MAJOR, JAGUAR, SAMPATHI, RICH RAJA, CLEAN, MARVEL, KISAN, JAIL, WASH AND FOOND which contains Amino Acid and See-Weed Extract by issuing Memo No.PP.II(1)2085/2005, dated 21.01.2006 and the consequential letter No.PP.II(1)2085/2005, dated 21.01.2006 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, they are engaged in the business of sale and supply of bio-Products, which are manufactured without usage of any toxic chemicals unlike the manufacturing of regular pesticides; the bio-products marketed by them contain See Weed extract, Amino Acid, Organic Nutrients, Humic Acid, Fulvic Acid, Protein Hydrolysates, Gypszum, Tulasi water extract, Soya bean extract and plant extracts; these ingredients sourced from principal manufacturers and blended in stirrer with Acetone as Solvents and blended in water; the percentage of the ingredients will vary from one recommended crop to another recommended crop; the manufacturing unit of the petitioners” firm is situated at 40/301, Room No.24, Madam Subbanna Setty Factory, N.H. Road, Kurnool, Kurnool District; the Insecticides Act, 1968 provides for regulation of manufacturing, distribution and sale of insecticides; petitioners” firm is marketing the bio-products in Andhra Pradesh State and paying tax to the Government, it is not necessary to obtain any permission for marketing of the above bio-products, as the said products will not fall under the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 or Insecticides Act, 1968; as the products of the petitioner do not fall under the ambit of either the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 or Insecticides Act, the same can be sold without there being any marketing permission under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and Insecticides Act; that in spite of the same, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings 21.01.2006 stating that bio-products are not covered by the Insecticides Act, 1968 or the Fertilizer Control (Order) Act, 1985; challenging the same, some of the manufacturers, filed WP No.8207 of 2006 and batch and this Court allowed the said batch writ petitions, directing the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the store, sale and distribution of bio-products; in spite of the same, the officials of the 2nd respondent informed that those orders are applicable only to the petitioners, who approached the Court; the similarly situated firms filed W.P.No.25293 of 2014 and batch and after disposal of the said Writ Petition and batch on 10.07.2015, the matters were carried before the Division Bench by way of Writ Appeal Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016 and the said order was confirmed with certain modifications; hence, the Writ Petition. 3. 3. Writ Petition No.25293 of 2014 and batch were filed challenging the action of the respondents therein in interfering with the manufacture and sale of bio-products by issuing a memo dated 21.01.2006. The sum and substance of the said memo is that certain products are not covered under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the stocking/exhibiting for sale from the licensed premises is not permitted. Writ Petition No.25293 of 2014 and batch were filed on the ground that when the activity is not covered by the provisions of the Act, the respondent authorities cannot interfere with the activities of the petitioners therein and the said Writ Petitions were disposed of with the following directions. "19. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: i) The petitioners shall not deal with bio-products without maintaining proper packing and marking of the product. The packing of bio-products shall contain the ingredients included in the product, analytical procedure and their percentage. This enables the authority to verify the contents of the product. ii) The manufacturer of every bio-product should intimate the concerned Commissioner of Agriculture with regard to the manufacturing activity undertaken by it with name of the product, process and its content. The Commissioner of Agriculture need not grant any permission and mere information from the manufacturer is enough for this purpose. The Commissioner of Agriculture shall issue an acknowledgement of such information. iii) The dealer of bio-products should have the information with regard to the source of purchase of bio-products and shall maintain a register for the said purpose in order to enable the authorities to inspect the stock from time to time. iv) It is for the authorities to inspect the bio-products in the location of the manufacturer prior to its dispatch to the dealer or in the location of the dealer and take sample thereof in order to verify whether any such product contains harmful substances attracting the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 or used as a fertilizer violating the provisions of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. The sample of the product shall be collected from the said source by the authorities under the signature of the persons dealing with bio-products and the authority who is collecting for the purpose of sending it to the appropriate Laboratory in order to verify the contents of the said product. The sample of the product shall be collected from the said source by the authorities under the signature of the persons dealing with bio-products and the authority who is collecting for the purpose of sending it to the appropriate Laboratory in order to verify the contents of the said product. v) From a copy of the report if any prohibited substance is found by the authority, the authority shall issue a notice along with a copy of the report to the persons dealing with the product and take necessary action against such persons either under the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 or Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. After receipt of the explanation from the person, the authority can pass appropriate orders under the provisions of the said enactments. vi) The report from the concerned Laboratory shall be obtained as expeditiously as possible, preferably not later than a week from the date of collection of the sample and till such time, the concerned authority can withhold manufacture and sale of bio-product. Against the order passed by the authority who collected sample, the aggrieved party can file an appeal to the higher authority as provided in the above provisions if so advised. vii) The collection of samples and the process of passing order shall not be resorted to routinely but should be on credible information that the product is causing damage to the public agriculture activity and on prima facie satisfaction of such information. viii) The respondents shall not violate the law and resort to unnecessary harassment of the manufacturers or dealers in a routine manner. ix) In case of violation of the above direction s, it is open to the petitioners to bring it to the notice of the higher authorities of the action of the officers violating the directions, and the higher authority to the authority interfering with the activity of the petitioners shall dispose of the representations with utmost expediency and not later than ten days from the receipt thereof. 4. Challenging the said order, the State Government has preferred Writ Appeals bearing W.A.Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016, which were disposed of by the Division Bench of the combined High Court on 03.11.2016, observing as follows. 4. Challenging the said order, the State Government has preferred Writ Appeals bearing W.A.Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016, which were disposed of by the Division Bench of the combined High Court on 03.11.2016, observing as follows. "As has been rightly held by the Learned Single Judge, the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India can only be restricted in accordance with Article 19(6) thereof. While the Act requires a license to be obtained for storing and selling insecticides, no provision, either in the Act or the Rules made there under, has been brought to our notice which prohibits a licensee from selling other products, in addition to insecticides, in the very same premises. The impugned memo, whereby dealers were prohibited from stocking, exhibiting and selling bio-products not covered under the Act, from the premises for which a license has been granted under the Act and the Rules, is not authorised either by any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made there under. The fact, however, remains that though the guidelines, in the order under appeal, have been stipulated in the larger public interest of protecting farmers, some of the conditions prescribed therein appear to run contrary to the provisions of the Act. As the Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture has rightly pointed out Clause 6 of the guidelines, which requires a report from the concerned laboratory to be obtained not later than a week from the date of collection of the sample, does appear to fall foul of the time limit of one month specified in Section 21(1)(d) of the Act. Likewise Clause 7, which requires credible information to form the basis of collection of a sample, may well be construed as restricting the power, conferred under Section 21(1)(d) of the Act, on the Insecticide Inspector to withhold stocks if he has reason to believe that insecticides are being distributed, sold or used in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. While we are in complete agreement with the submission of Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner, that there cannot be an omnibus categorization, of all bio-products as insecticides, for the purpose of taking action under the Act, the grounds on which the Insecticide Inspector has reason to believe, that insecticides are being sold in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, would depend upon the facts of each case, and cannot be circumscribed by way of guidelines issued by this Court. The guidelines prescribed, in the order under appeal, can only supplement and not supplant the law, and would remain in force only till appropriate legislation - either plenary or subordinate - is made in this regard. Suffice it, while making it clear that there cannot be an omnibus categorization of all bio-products as insecticides for taking action against the dealers of those goods, to also make it clear that the guidelines, prescribed in the order under appeal, shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the powers conferred on the concerned authorities under the Act and the Rules. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on whether or not any of these bio-products are insecticides, as these are matters which the authorities concerned are required to examine in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules made there under, and the guidelines stipulated in the order under appeal. The order under appeal is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove, and the Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingly." 5. Counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent stating, inter alia, that the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India has issued a Gazette notification vide SO No.882(E), dated 23.02.2021, under Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Amendment Order, 2021 duly including the Bio-stimulants in Schedule VI of Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985. Counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent stating, inter alia, that the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India has issued a Gazette notification vide SO No.882(E), dated 23.02.2021, under Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Amendment Order, 2021 duly including the Bio-stimulants in Schedule VI of Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985. The Division Bench of the combined High Court observed that the guidelines prescribed in the order under appeal would remain in force only till appropriate legislation - either plenary or subordinate - is made in that regard and pursuant to the said Division Bench order and to regulate the manufacturing and marketing of bio-products particularly with fake and bogus addresses and to prevent spurious products to the farmers the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.18, Agriculture & Cooperation (AGRl.III) Department, dated 10.03.2017 and sub-clause (4) of Clause 3 of the said SO No.882(E) reads as follows. "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this order, any person manufacturing a bio-stimulant as on the date of publication of this order for which no standards have been specified, may, subject to making an application for grant of provisional registration under sub-clause (5), continue to manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, stock or exhibit such bio-stimulant for a period of two years from the date of publication of this order." 6. The said time limits were extended vide SO No.2333, dated 14.06.2021, which reads as follows. "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), the Central Government hereby makes the following order further to amend the Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985, namely:- 1. (1) This order may be called the Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Amendment Order, 2021. (2) It shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. 2. In the Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985 (i) In clause 20(c), in sub-clause (5), for the words “within a period of six months from the date of publication of this order”, the words, figure and letters “within 31st March, 2022", shall be substituted. (ii) In “Form G-3, for the words, figures and letters “up to…day of August, 2022”, the words, figures and letters “up to 22nd day of February, 2023” shall be substituted.” 7. (ii) In “Form G-3, for the words, figures and letters “up to…day of August, 2022”, the words, figures and letters “up to 22nd day of February, 2023” shall be substituted.” 7. In view of the categorical extension of time limits in S.O.No.2333, dated 14.06.2021, the respondents are directed to follow the provision and the guidelines stipulated in So.No.882 (E), dated 23.02.2021 and SO No.2333, dated 14.06.2021, while dealing with products of the petitioners and interfering with the activity of the petitioners who are dealing with the subject products. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.