Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 443 (RAJ)

Singla Seeds Agencies v. State of Rajasthan

2022-02-10

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petition of the petitioner Firm may kindly be allowed: (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 16.01.2017 (Annexure-7) as well as Appellate Order dated 28.07.2017 (Annexure-9) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) further by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Licensing Authority may be directed that on submission of the application for the renewal of the license by the petitioner Firm the same may be renewed in accordance with law.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Firm is engaged in the business of producing certified seeds, and that in the course of such business, it applied for grant of license as per Clause (4) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Order of 1983’) which was then approved by the respondent No. 3, and the same culminated into issuance of the necessary license, bearing license No. 1667 dated 14.03.2008, and subsequently, upon the said license being expired, the same was renewed by the concerned authorities from time to time. 3.1. Clause 4 of the Order of 1983 reads as follows: “4. Application for licence Every person desiring to obtain a licence for selling, exporting or importing seeds shall make an application in duplicate in Form ‘A’ together with a fee of rupees fifty for licence to licensing authority.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that after an inspection of the petitioner's godown being conducted by the Assistant Director, Agriculture Plant Protection, Sri Ganganagar and upon the submission of the report subsequently prepared, the petitioner's seeds were seized, followed by issuance of a notice to the petitioner to show cause (within two days from the date of such notice), as to why the petitioner's license should not be suspended/cancelled, in light of the alleged impropriety committed by it in the storage of seeds, thereby violating the prescriptions of Clause 3 sub-clause (1) read with Clause 12 sub-clause (2) of the Order of 1983. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No. 3 thereafter, suspended the license in question on 22.12.2016 without even affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, and that the petitioner appealed against the same under the relevant provision of the Order of 1983. Learned counsel also submits that subsequently, the license in question was cancelled vide order dated 16.01.2017, which order was also appealed against by the petitioner, but the said appeal was also dismissed by the respondent No. 2 on 28.07.2017, while upholding the order dated 16.01.2017. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the license in question of the petitioner was suspended and subsequently cancelled, because the petitioner-Firm has committed transgressions on the license in question, and that the godown was not registered on such license, which is a clear violation of Clause 3 sub-clause (1), Clause 13 sub-clause (1) (e) and Clause 13 sub-clause (2) of the Order of 1983. 6.1. The relevant provisions of law as under the aforementioned Clauses, read as follows: “3. Dealer to obtain licence (1) No person shall carry on the business of selling, exporting or importing seeds at any place except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of licence granted to him under this order. 13. Inspection and punishment (1) An Inspector may with a view to securing compliance with this Order: (e) seize any books of accounts or document relating to any seed in respect of which he has reason to believe that a contravention of this Order has been committed or is being committed. (2) Subject to the provision of paragraph (d) of sub-clause (1), the provision, of section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to searches and seizures under this clause.” 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner was storing the seeds at an unauthorised place in violation of the terms and conditions of the license in question, coupled with violation of the Order of 1983, and that the said facts have deliberately not been brought on record by the petitioner before this Court; and also drew this Court's attention to Rule 13 of the Seeds Rules, 1983. 7.1. Rule 13 of the Seeds Rules of 1983 reads as follows: “13. 7.1. Rule 13 of the Seeds Rules of 1983 reads as follows: “13. Requirements to be complied with by a person carrying on the Business referred to in Section 7: (1) No person shall sell, keep for sale, offer to sell, barter or otherwise supply any seed of any notified kind or variety, after the date recorded on the container, mark or label as the date upto which the seed may be expected to retain the germination not less than that prescribed under clause (a) of section 6 of the Act. (2) No person shall alter, obliterate or deface any mark or label attached to the container of any seed. (3) Every persons selling, keeping for sate, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind or variety under section 7, shall keep over a period of three years a complete record of each lot of seed sold except that any seed sample maybe discarded one year after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed of. The sample of seed kept as part of the complete record shall be as large as the size notified in the official Gazette. This sample, if required to be, tested, shall be tested only for determining the purity.” 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case and the relevant provisions of law under the Rules of 1968 and Order of 1983, this Court finds that the license in question of the petitioner-Firm, who is engaged in the business of producing certified seeds, was suspended and subsequently cancelled after following the due process of law laid down in the Order of 1983, wherein the site inspection and inquiry was conducted by the Seed Inspector and Assistant Director Agriculture (Plant Protection), office of Joint Director Agriculture, Zone Sri Ganganagar and Seed Inspector and Agriculture officer (Plant Protection), office of Assistant Director, Agriculture Extension, Sadulshahar, and the petitioner was found to be committing a gross violation of the terms and conditions of the license in question, coupled with violation of the prescriptions laid down in the Order of 1983. 9. This Court observes that the impugned order dated 16.01.2017 clearly states that a show cause notice dated 16.12.2016 was issued to the petitioner and subsequently, a notice dated 19.12.2016 was also issued to the petitioner. 9. This Court observes that the impugned order dated 16.01.2017 clearly states that a show cause notice dated 16.12.2016 was issued to the petitioner and subsequently, a notice dated 19.12.2016 was also issued to the petitioner. However, since the reply given by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory, the license in question of the petitioner was subsequently cancelled. 10. This Court further observes that the impugned order dated 28.07.2017 clearly states that the petitioner-Firm was given an adequate opportunity of hearing, and was accordingly heard at length before passing the impugned order. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that both the impugned orders suffer from legal infirmity on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, apparently do not inspire the confidence of this Court, as the petitioner was in fact issued multiple notices, and was also heard at length before the license in question was cancelled. 12. Thus, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to warrant any interference under the writ jurisdiction. 13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.