Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 499 (BOM)

Mahesh Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra

2024-03-26

BHARAT P.DESHPANDE

body2024
JUDGMENT : Bharat P. Deshpande, J. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 4. The petitioner is a proprietor concern dealing in business of insecticides and fertilizers on a license granted by the concerned Authority. The respondent No.3/Inspector visited the commercial premises of the petitioner on 21.02.2024 and on inspection submitted a report. The respondent No. 3/Inspector alleged that the petitioner though obtained license, selling insecticides illegally out of the District and the State and some of the insecticides are being sold without necessary permission. He also observed, that some of the clauses mentioned in the license are stands violated. The respondent No. 3/Inspector, while submitted the report, called upon the petitioner to give his say within a period of 7 days. However, on the same day, he delivered an order directing the petitioner not to dispose of any stock in his possession and also issued order to stop the sale, distribution or use of the subject insecticides mentioned in the list annexed with the said order for a period of 21 days therefrom. 5. On 27.02.2024, the petitioner submitted his explanation in writing to the respondent No. 3/Inspector with a request to revoke the order of stopping of sale and distribution of the insecticides. Since no action was taken, the petitioner preferred the present petition with the following prayer. "Prayer:- It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: i. issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon the record of proceeding wherein the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 is passed by the Learned Respondent No.3 and after examining the same, further may kindly be pleased to issue the Writ declaring that the Learned respondent No.3 has not proceeded as per the Law and acted in contravention of the provisions of Law and further be pleased to declare the impugned Order dt.21.02.2024 a nullity; ii. quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-1; iii. stay the effect, operation and execution of impugned Order dated 21.02.2024 during the pendency of petition to enable the petitioner to continue with his business; iv. quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-1; iii. stay the effect, operation and execution of impugned Order dated 21.02.2024 during the pendency of petition to enable the petitioner to continue with his business; iv. saddle the cost of the petition upon the respondents; v. grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, in the interest of justice." 6. During the pendency of the present petition, the respondents brought to the notice that another order was passed against the petitioner thereby stopping him from selling the insecticides and fertilizers till further orders. It is the contention of the petitioner, that the second order was not served on him till date. However, the petition is filed with regard to the earlier orders on specific grounds as disclosed in the petition. 7. It is the contention of the petitioner, that he obtained a valid license for the purpose of sale of insecticides and fertilizers and that he is purchasing agro products validly and lawfully manufactured by the renowned and prestigious manufacturers, which are authorised distributors/dealers under valid invoices in bulk and selling it in the local market. It is the contention, that he did not violate any provisions of the license or the one which is mentioned in the report as well as the order passed by the respondents. It is further his contention, that the person not being an importer or manufacturer of an insecticide or is the agent for distribution thereof cannot be liable for contravention of any provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short "the Act of 1968" hereinafter), if he had acquired the insecticide from an importer or a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or a dealer thereof and was absolutely unaware, could not, with reasonable diligence have ascertained that the insecticide in any way contravened any provisions of the Act of 1968 while in possession of such insecticide duly stored and kept for sale. Further it is the contention of the petitioner that no contravention of such nature is even alleged, and therefore, the petitioner is protected under Section 30(3) of the Act of 1968 and thus not liable for consequences. 8. Further it is the contention of the petitioner that no contravention of such nature is even alleged, and therefore, the petitioner is protected under Section 30(3) of the Act of 1968 and thus not liable for consequences. 8. It is further contention of the petitioner, that wrong provisions of the Act and Rules were applied in the impugned order for which no contraventions have been alleged against the petitioner including mis-branding of the insecticide. 9. Reply is filed on behalf of the respondents thereby supporting the orders passed by the concerned Authorities. Even the application is filed by the intervenor/manufacturer vide Civil Application (CAW) No. 892/2024 which was kept along with the present petition to be decided. It is the contention of the intervenor that the said Company never issued any principal certificate in favour of the petitioner for sale or distribution of the insecticides manufactured by the said Company and thus the petitioner is not entitled to store and sale the products of the intervenor Company. 10. Ms. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that first of all the license is issued under Section 13 of the Act of 1968, wherein no conditions are imposed specifically restricting the petitioner from selling insecticides and the fertilizers out of the District or out of the State. She submits, that such concept is not available in the entire Act. Once the license is issued, the petitioner who is a dealer is entitled to sale the insecticides throughout the State or even outside the State. 11. Ms. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, would further submit that wrong provisions of the Act of 1968 are applied which clearly goes to show non application of mind on part of the concerned Authorities. The petitioner is protected from any prosecution or action under Section 30(3) of the Act of 1968 and the respondents failed to demonstrate as to how such action is illegal. 12. Ms. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, would further submit that first of all during the visit of respondent No.3/Inspector at the shop of the petitioner, no inspection was carried out and specifically no sample was attached for the purpose of claiming mis-branding of the product. It is also claimed, that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to be heard before passing of the order of stopping of sale. It is also claimed, that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to be heard before passing of the order of stopping of sale. He would further submit, that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice and fair play and legality of such orders is in question in the present petition. Finally it is claimed, that the license issued to the petitioner discloses the names of the Company/Manufacturer and instead of issuing stopping sale order, the respondent No.3/Inspector could have restricted the sale of other manufacturers then the one mentioned in the license. It further shows, the non application of mind on part of the respondents. 13. Per contra, Mr. Palshikar, the learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State, would submit that the license issued in favour of the petitioner is only restricting the sale in the said District and that the inspection carried out by the respondent No.3/Inspector would go to show that the sale of insecticides was carried out by the petitioner beyond the said District and also beyond the State of Maharashtra. He therefore would submit, that it is the contravention of the license conditions as well as Rule 10 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (for short "the Rules of 1971" hereinafter). 14. Mr. Palshikar, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State, would further submit that as per the Government Resolution, the license in the entire State could be issued by a specific Authority, whereas the license to the petitioner was issued by the District Officer whose jurisdiction is only within Akola District. He would further submit, that the bills collected by the Inspector from the premises of the petitioner would go to show that insecticides of different Companies were distributed/sold beyond Akola District and beyond State of Maharashtra are certainly contravened the conditions of the license. He would further submit, that a certificate is required to be issued by the manufacturer being the Principal Company, which is absent in the present matter. 15. Mr. Palshikar, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State, would then submit that the orders passed by the Authorities gives specific reasons and thus such orders need no interference. 16. Mr. Palshikar, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 15. Mr. Palshikar, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State, would then submit that the orders passed by the Authorities gives specific reasons and thus such orders need no interference. 16. Mr. Palshikar, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State, would then submit that the petitioner is not entitled for any protection as provided under Section 30(3) of the Act of 1968, as no documents are produced to that effect. He would then submit, that the period of imposing no sale order could be extended beyond 30 days which has been carried out in the present matter by proper exercise of the powers. 17. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the intervenor, tried to submit that the said intervenor never issued any principle certificate authorizing the petitioner to sale insecticides produced by the intervenor, and therefore, such intervenor be allowed to intervene in the matter. 18. In rejoinder, Ms. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that first of all Section 12 of the Act of 1968, discussed about the jurisdiction of the respective officers for grant of license. Once the license is issued, the dealer cannot be restricted from effecting sale of the insecticide beyond the District or beyond the State. No such restrictions is found in the entire Act or the Rules. It was further submitted, that provisions of Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1971, are not applicable to the matter in hand as there is no such contravention alleged. Finally it is claimed, that the order passed by the Authorities is not reflecting the correct provisions, which cannot be supplemented by filing affidavit on behalf of the respondents. 19. The rival contentions fall for determination. 20. The petitioner is admittedly a proprietorship concerned and dealing with sale of insecticides and fertilizers. It is also admitted fact, that from time to time the petitioner was granted license to sale, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute insecticide. Last such license was issued in favour of the petitioner on 07.07.2022 (Annexure-1). It clearly shows, that such license is issued in the name of the petitioner by Government of Maharashtra, wherein the old license number as well as new license number is found mentioned. Last such license was issued in favour of the petitioner on 07.07.2022 (Annexure-1). It clearly shows, that such license is issued in the name of the petitioner by Government of Maharashtra, wherein the old license number as well as new license number is found mentioned. It further demonstrated, that the license to sale, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute insecticide in the premises situated at Gat No. 202, MIDC Phase No.04, Kumbhari, Akola, Maharashtra is granted in favour of the petitioner. The conditions in the license are found mentioned therein are reads thus. "Conditions 1. This license shall be displayed in the prominent place in the premises for which the license is being issued and shall be produced for inspection as and when required by an insecticide inspector, licensing officer or any officer officer authorised by the Government in this regard. 2. Any change in the name of the expert staff, named in the license, shall forthwith be reported to the licensing officer. 3. The licensee shall scrupulously comply with each and every condition of registration of the insecticide(s), failing which the license is liable to be cancelled. 4. No insecticide shall be sold or exhibited for sale or distributed or issued for use in commercial pest control operations except in packages approved by the Registration Committee from time to time. 5. If the licensee wants to manufacture/sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute/stock and use for commercial pest control operations, any additional insecticide, he may apply to the licensing officer for addition in the licence for each such insecticide on payment of the prescribed fee. 6. For pest control operations an application for the renewal of the licence shall be made as laid down in sub-rule (3A) of rule 10 of the insecticides Rules, 1971. 7. The licensee shall comply with the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and the rules made there under for the time being in force. 8. The licence also authorizes the storage and stocking of insecticide(s) manufactured at the licensed premises, in the factory premises for sale by way of wholesale dealing by the licensee. 9. The licensee shall maintain the record of 'date expired insecticides' separately in the format as per Appendix A. 10. The licensee shall maintain the record of sale/distribution of insecticides in the format as per Appendix B and shall submit monthly return to the Licensing Officer. 11. 9. The licensee shall maintain the record of 'date expired insecticides' separately in the format as per Appendix A. 10. The licensee shall maintain the record of sale/distribution of insecticides in the format as per Appendix B and shall submit monthly return to the Licensing Officer. 11. The licensee shall maintain the stock register for technical and formulated products, separately as per Appendix C1 and C2, respectively. (For manufacturer only) 12. The licensee shall submit the monthly return for technical grade and formulated insecticide separately as per Appendix D1 and D2, respectively. (For manufacturer only) 13. The licensee shall maintain a record of periodical medical examination of persons engaged in connection with insecticides as per Appendix E. 14. All the registers are to be kept under secured custody by the Licensee and shall be provided for scrutiny any time to the Insecticide Inspector, Licensing Officer or any other officer authorised by the Central Government and/or the State Government. 15. Any other condition(s) as specified by the licensing officer. 16. This is system generated and digitally signed license issued against truthfulness of attested documents submitted by applicant and the undertaking given regarding its truthfulness. If any of the information submitted for obtaining the license is found to be false misleading/miss presented will be liable for punishment under the provisions of existing laws and in that case, the license deemed to be cancelled." 21. The license is enclosed with statement-I, wherein the Principle certificate provider Manufactures names are mentioned. First manufacturer is known as Gayatri Micro Elements and Chemicals. Against the name of such manufacturer, the particulars of insecticides along with its Composite Formula, Certificates Registration Number, Date of Inclusion and Marketing Validity are disclosed. In all 40 different insecticides manufactured by Gayatri Micro Elements and Chemicals are permitted to be stocked, exhibit for sale or distribution by the petitioner are disclosed. Similarly, another Company by name Kay Bee Bio Organics Pvt. Ltd., is a Principle certificate provider Manufacturers, wherein total 18 insecticides were permitted to be exhibited/stocked for sale by the petitioner. 22. It is the contention of Ms. Similarly, another Company by name Kay Bee Bio Organics Pvt. Ltd., is a Principle certificate provider Manufacturers, wherein total 18 insecticides were permitted to be exhibited/stocked for sale by the petitioner. 22. It is the contention of Ms. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the earlier license issued in favour of the petitioner were having total 34 Companies as the Principle provider Manufacturer, however in the year 2022, the Department of Agriculture directed the license holders to apply online and due to such technical procedure, the petitioner was unable to disclose correctly and truly of the Principle certificates of 34 manufacturers. It was also pointed out, that the website of the Department of Agriculture State of Maharashtra, is not accessible on many occasions, and therefore, it was difficult for the petitioner to apply for and upload Principle certificates. This aspect though argued orally at the time of argument, is not found mentioned in the petition and thus such contention cannot be looked into in the present petition. 23. The order passed by the respondent No.3/Inspector is dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure-2). In this inspection note/order, it is mentioned that the Inspector visited the premises of the petitioner on 21.02.2024 between 11.50 a.m., to 03.20 p.m., and observed irregularities as ticked mark in the said Annexure. The first objection/irregularity shows that though the petitioner had obtained license, he is selling insecticides illegally beyond the District and the State. The second objection is that the petitioner failed to show the notice board displaying the stock of the insecticides as well as the one sold till that date. The third irregularity is mentioned, that the petitioner kept for sale the insecticides of four Companies without obtaining the Principle certificate. Along with these irregularities, some other irregularity was also found. The Inspector while issuing such inspection note directed the petitioner to submit his reply within 7 days. However, on the same date, the Inspector vide order under Section 21(1)(D) of the Act of 1968 prohibited the petitioner and directed him to stop distribution sale or use of the insecticides for a period of 21 days. List is enclosed along with the said order of the insecticides with its numbers. 24. However, on the same date, the Inspector vide order under Section 21(1)(D) of the Act of 1968 prohibited the petitioner and directed him to stop distribution sale or use of the insecticides for a period of 21 days. List is enclosed along with the said order of the insecticides with its numbers. 24. The petitioner vide his reply dated 23.02.2024 explained the alleged irregularities and claimed that there is no contravention of any provisions of the said Act or the Rules, and therefore, the order of stop sale required to be revoked. 25. The order dated 21.02.2024, clearly revealed that the Inspector having reason to believe that the insecticides described in the list are in possession of the petitioner for the purpose of distribution, sale or use in contravention of the provisions of Sections 3K(vi), 9(1), 18(1)(a)(c) and 18(2) of the Act of 1968 read with Rules 9(1), 10(C)(D), 12, 13 and 15 of the Rules of 1971. 26. A contention raised by Mr. Palshikar, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State, that the license is issued to the petitioner only for sale/distribution in Akola District and that the petitioner cannot sell the insecticides beyond Akola District and beyond the State of Maharashtra, required to be out-rightly rejected. 27. Mr. Palshikar, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State, while arguing such aspect, placed reliance on Section 12 of the Act of 1968. The interpretation advanced by Mr. Palshikar, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State on Section 12 stating that when the license is issued by the Inspector, it is reflecting the sale of insecticide within the District itself is completely misplaced. First of all Section 12 of the Act of 1968 deals with Licensing Officers and gives the powers to State Government, by notification in the official gazette to appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be the licensing officers for the purposes of the said Act and define the areas in respect of which they shall exercise jurisdiction. Thus, Section 12 of the Act of 1968 deals with the powers of the Licensing Officers and not restricting the areas with regard to the license. It only facilitate the Government by issuing notification to appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be the Licensing Officers within restrictive areas who shall have jurisdiction to grant license. 28. Thus, Section 12 of the Act of 1968 deals with the powers of the Licensing Officers and not restricting the areas with regard to the license. It only facilitate the Government by issuing notification to appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be the Licensing Officers within restrictive areas who shall have jurisdiction to grant license. 28. Section 13 of the Act of 1968 deals with the grant of license but it provides that any person desiring to manufacture or to sale, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute any insecticide may make an application to the licensing officer for the grant of a license. Thus, any person who is in need of license has to apply to the licensing officer within whose jurisdiction the license premises exists. The petitioner applied for grant of license with respondent No.3/Inspector since the premises where the petitioner is stocking/displaying the insecticides falls within the jurisdiction of respondent No.3/Inspector. The notification produced along with reply affidavit at Annexure-R-I is only with regard to the powers given to different officers for issuing licenses. This notification was issued as per Section 12 of the Act of 1968. It nowhere restricts the person having license not to sale or distribute the insecticides beyond the District or beyond the State. 29. The licence issued to the petitioner is for sale, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute insecticides from the premises i.e. Gat No. 202, MIDC Phase No. 4, Kumbhari, Akola District. It is not the case of the respondents, that the petitioner is found selling, stocking or exhibiting for sale or distributing insecticides from any other place then the one mentioned in the license. The restriction that the petitioner must sell insecticides only within Akola District since the license is issued by the Inspector having power to issue license within Akola District, is not at all acceptable for the simple reason that once the license is issued for the purpose of sale, the petitioner is entitled to sell such insecticides anywhere in India subject to that such sale is effected from the premises mentioned in the license. Thus, the contention on behalf of the respondents, that there is contravention of sale beyond the District and the State, is incorrect and such interpretation by the concerned Inspector as well as by the other officers cannot be accepted. 30. Thus, the contention on behalf of the respondents, that there is contravention of sale beyond the District and the State, is incorrect and such interpretation by the concerned Inspector as well as by the other officers cannot be accepted. 30. The second ground found in Annexure-3 i.e. the order passed under Section 21 (1)(d) of the Act of 1968 dated 21.02.2024, is the alleged contravention of the provisions under Section 3(k)(vi). However, Section 3 deals with definition and clause (k) deals with mis-branded. Sub clause (vi) of Clause (k) reads that if it is not registered in the manner required by or under this Act, must be read along with the word mis-branded. Admittedly, no sample of any insecticide was collected by the Inspector during the visit. He only collected some bills/invoices which are produced along with the reply affidavit. There is no allegation with regard to mis-branding of the products. 31. In this regard, the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6586/2018 filed by the petitioner and decided vide order dated 30.10.2018 observed in para 5 and 6 which is as under: "5. It is seen from the impugned order that the contravention of the provisions of the Act, according to the Licensing Officer, has occurred because the insecticides have been purchased by the petitioner from a vendor whose name was not included in licence No. LAID 23020144. However, it is an admitted fact that apart from the said licence number there are other licence numbers granted to the other vendors for sale of the insecticides. So, it is obvious that it is not necessary for the retailer like the petitioner to make purchases only from the holder of, the licence No. LAID 23020144 and that such retailer can also make purchases from the other licence holders. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that he made purchases of the insecticides from Govind Enterprises, having a certificate from the principal manufacturer for sale of its insecticides. However, it is seen from the impugned order that this fact has not been verified for its correctness or otherwise by the Licensing Officer. Section 14 contemplates that the Licensing Officer must be satisfied about the contravention of the provisions of the Act before he passes an order relating to revocation or suspicion etc. of the licence granted. However, it is seen from the impugned order that this fact has not been verified for its correctness or otherwise by the Licensing Officer. Section 14 contemplates that the Licensing Officer must be satisfied about the contravention of the provisions of the Act before he passes an order relating to revocation or suspicion etc. of the licence granted. In the absence of the verification properly having been made by the Licensing Officer, I do not think that any satisfaction for the necessity of invoking the power under Section 14 could have been recorded in a lawful manner by the Licensing Officer. However, I find that this requirement of law has not been complied with by the Licensing Officer in the present case. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law, it being patently illegal." 32. In the case of Prabhakar Tulshiramji Mankar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2005 (1) MhLJ 228 , the learned Division Bench of this Court while dealing with similar contentions, observed in para 18 which reads as under: "18. The licensing authority and the appellate authority have ignored the provision contained in sub-section (3) of section 30 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 where under the presumption is to protect the licensee if the conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. In earlier part of the judgment, we have, while narrating the case of the petitioners, stated that right from inception, it was their contention that the containers were in sealed condition when received by them and remained in same condition when seized by the Inspector. Provisions under sub-section (3) of section 30 of the Act is very much clear wherein the person who is not an importer or manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution, shall not be liable for contravention of any provision of the Act, if he proves that he acquired the insecticides from an importer or duly licensed manufacturer and that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the insecticides in any way contravened any provision of the Act, and this condition is very material that the insecticides, while in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it." 33. For the purpose of contravention of mis-branding as provided under Section 3(k) of the Act of 1968, first and foremost aspect is that the concerned officer is required to seized the insecticide from the premises of the petitioner so as to confirm about the contravention of mis-branding. If there is no seizure of any insecticide from the premises of the petitioner, it is difficult to believe that there was mis-branding of the insecticide since no such material will be available with the concerned Authority. Accordingly, the alleged contravention under Section 3(k)(vi) of the Act of 1968, is levelled against the petitioner without any prima-facie material. 34. Another contravention which is alleged against the petitioner is under Section 9(1) of the Act of 1968, which deals with registration of insecticides. It is provided that any person desiring to import or manufacture of any insecticide may apply to the Registration Committee for registration of such insecticide and there shall be separate application for each such insecticide. Bare perusal of this provision would go to show that the person who is desirous to import or manufacturing any insecticide is required to apply for registration. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither an importer nor manufacturer but he is only a dealer. The petitioner is purchasing the insecticide from the Company/Manufacturer or the registered dealer. Thus, Section 9(1) of the Act of 1968, will not attract in the case of the petitioner. 35. The next contravention alleged against the petitioner is under Section 18 of the Act of 1968, which deals with prohibition of sale of certain insecticides. In this Section, it is claimed that 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 or any insecticide which is not registered under this Act or any insecticide in contravention of any other provisions of this Act or Rules made thereunder. Sub Section 2 of Section 18 of the Act of 1968 provides that 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 license issued for such purpose under this Act. 36. Sub Section 2 of Section 18 of the Act of 1968 provides that 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 license issued for such purpose under this Act. 36. Since Section 18 of the Act of 1968 deals with prohibition of sale/exhibiting insecticide which are not registered under the Act or in contravention of the provisions of the Act, it is for the concerned officer to establish this aspect. In the present matter, it is nowhere alleged that the list of insecticides attached to the order dated 21.02.2024 are not registered insecticides under the Act or that it contravends the provisions of the license. The contention of the respondents, that the Company/Producers failed to give Principle certificate in favour of the petitioner, and therefore, there is contravention of Section 18 of the Act of 1968. Such contention on behalf of the respondents is again on a misconstruction of the provisions itself. The petitioner claimed that he purchased such insecticides from a registered dealer, and therefore, there is not prohibition for him to sell such articles from his shop/premises. The same aspect is also covered under the Rules. 37. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that he is protected under Section 30(3) of the Act of 1968, which reads thus: "30(1)....... 30(2)....... 30(3) A person not being an importer or a manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of any provision of this Act, if he proves - (a) that he acquired the insecticide from an importer or a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof; (b) that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that he insecticide in any way contravened any provision of this Act; and (c) that the insecticide, while in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it." 38. It is admitted fact, that the petitioner is neither an importer nor manufacturer of insecticides, and therefore, he is covered under the said provisions. It is admitted fact, that the petitioner is neither an importer nor manufacturer of insecticides, and therefore, he is covered under the said provisions. In M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur and another, 1990 (Supp) SCC 111, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the provisions of Section 30(3) of the Act of 1968 observed that said M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar (supra) being a dealer under the Act is protected under Section 30(3) of the Act of 1968. The similar view is taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhakar Tulshiramji Mankar (supra) is quoted above. The matter in hand is on more better footing as no samples were collected from the shop/premises of the petitioner so as to consider it as mis-branded. Therefore, the petitioner being a dealer only, is entitled for the protection under Section 30(3) of the Act of 1968, which has been clearly ignored by the concerned Authority. 39. The submissions of the learned counsel for the intervenor are not required to be entertained in the present petition and he is entitled to vent out his grievance before the concerned Authority. 40. Accordingly, the impugned order is passed without application of mind, and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 41. The impugned order dated 21.02.2024, is hereby quashed and set aside. 42. The Petition is accordingly allowed. 43. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs. 44. Pending application/s, if any shall stand disposed of accordingly.