JUDGMENT Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral) The petitioner, who is a manufacturer of the insecticides assails order dated 12.6.2023 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Joint Director, Agriculture-cum- Licencing Authority vide which the licencing authority has revoked his insecticides licence. The petitioner also assails order dated 10.8.2023 (Annexure P-16) passed by the appellate authority whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against revocation of his licence has also been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the manufacturer had been storing the insecticides in the premises at Godown No.32-A, K.C. Complex, Sivian Road, Bathinda owned by Sh. Pankaj who is "clearing and forwarding" agent of petitioner-company. It has been submitted that on account of annual budget conference of the petitioner-company at Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu w.e.f. 17.4.2023 to 28.4.2023, all the marketing personnel from Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan were stationed at Coimbatore and during the absence of the representative of the petitioner company and without the consent of the petitioner company, the godown owner i.e. the Clearing and Forwarding Agent shifted the pesticides and fertilizers from his godown to an adjoining godown on account of excessive rains which were causing damage to stocked items and some repair work was also required to be undertaken. It is submitted that it is during the said period i.e. on 19.4.2023 that an inspection team inspected the premises of the godown and upon finding that the insecticides/pesticides belonging to the petitioner had been shifted to some other godown, FIR No. 446, dated 20.4.2023, under Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Sections 7 and 8 of the Fertilizer Control Order, Section 13 of the Insecticide Act 1968 and Rules 10 & 15 of the Insecticides Rules 1971 and Section 420 IPC was lodged against the Clearing and Forwarding Agent. The authorities concerned also drew 8 samples from various types of insecticides, but upon analysis 6 out of said 8 samples have been found to be conforming to be prescribed standards, while results of 2 are awaited. 3. The authorities concerned also drew 8 samples from various types of insecticides, but upon analysis 6 out of said 8 samples have been found to be conforming to be prescribed standards, while results of 2 are awaited. 3. It is further submitted that the authorities concerned i.e. respondent No.2 however, without making any inquiries to ascertain the cause of shifting of the insecticides/pesticides to the adjoining showroom revoked the insecticides licence which had been issued to the petitioner vide impugned order dated 12.6.2023 (Annexure P-13) on the premises that the petitioner had been violated the condition of licence dated 17.2.2010 (Annexure P-1). It has further been submitted that although the petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order, but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 10.8.2023 (Annexure P-16) without appreciating the correct factual position. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders cannot sustain inasmuch as it is not disputed that the FIR in question has not been lodged against the petitioner and has been lodged against Sh. Pankaj, "Clearing and Forwarding" agent only and as a matter of fact 6 out of the 8 samples which were drawn at the spot have been found to be conforming to the prescribed standards. Learned counsel has further submitted that it is the Clearing and Forwarding Agent who was having domain over the stored insecticides and pesticides and it was the said Clearing and Forwarding Agent who upon finding that incessant rains were causing damage had taken a decision to immediately shift all the stocks which had been stored in the godown to a neighboring godown so as to prevent damage to the stock and that there was no oblique motive in the same. Learned counsel has further submitted that under these circumstances, in case there is any violation, it is the said Clearing and Forwarding Agent who can be attributed with the same and the petitioner cannot be attributed any mens rea in respect of the same. 5. This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions. 6. A perusal of the licence dated 17.2.2010 (Annexure P-1) indicates that while issuing the licence in favour of the petitioner-company, the address of the godown is specifically mentioned therein as "Godown No.32-A, K.C Complex, Sivian Road, Bathinda" i.e. the godown owned by Pankaj, "Clearing and Forwarding" agent. 5. This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions. 6. A perusal of the licence dated 17.2.2010 (Annexure P-1) indicates that while issuing the licence in favour of the petitioner-company, the address of the godown is specifically mentioned therein as "Godown No.32-A, K.C Complex, Sivian Road, Bathinda" i.e. the godown owned by Pankaj, "Clearing and Forwarding" agent. A perusal further indicates that the said licence has been issued subject to such condition as may be specified under rules for the time being enforced. It is not disputed that a licensee cannot store the insecticides/pesticides at any premises as per his will but is required to store, stock and carry on the business only at the nominated premises which are mentioned in the licence itself. Any such change in premises would constitute violation of condition of licence unless such licensee has obtained necessary permission for such change. 7. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it was on account of unavoidable circumstances i.e. incessant rains during the period in question which necessitated immediate shifting of the stocks, but there is no evidence to substantiate the said plea regarding there being incessant rains during the month of April, 2023. Further a perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority indicates that it has specifically been recorded therein that the representative of petitioner-company while appearing before appellate authority feigned ignorance about the shifting. The circumstances as indicated above clearly show that it is a case of violation of the condition of the licence which would furnish sufficient reasons for revoking of the licence as has been done in the instant case. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.6.2023 (Annexure P-13) or in order dated 10.8.2023 (Annexure P-16) whereby the appellate authority has affirmed the aforesaid order dated 12.6.2023. 8. Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed.