Mahendraagrigenetics Private ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4306 AP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                        &
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

                      WRIT APPEAL NO.593 OF 2022

Mahendra Agrigenetics Private Limited,
Rep., by its Managing Director,
Mr. Mahender Reddy Yerramreddy,
S/o Ragotham Reddy, Hindu, Aged 56 years,
H.No.1-8-326, Balasamudram, Near Ekasila
Park, Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana
District, and others.

                                                             ..Appellants

                                      Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its
Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District and others.
                                                           ...Respondents

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. S. Bala Gopal Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP for Agriculture

ORAL JUDGMENT Dt:20.07.2022

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

The writ petitioners preferred this appeal against the order, dated

11.03.2022 passed by learned single Judge dismissing W.P.No.25580 of

2021.

2. The above writ petition was filed seeking the following relief:

".. to issue order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in appointing a committee without issuing any notice to take samples of the crop and in the absence of the petitioners and without issuing any notice or without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, HCJ & DVSSS, J

ultra-virus the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966, is unconstitutional and consequentially, direct the 3rd respondent to issue notice to the petitioner intimating the date of time of taking samples of the crop for the purpose of scientific investigation before passing any orders and grant such other relief as this Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.".

3. The only contention raised before the learned single Judge is that

under Section 15 of the Seeds Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act'), the concerned authority is enjoined to issue notice to the

petitioners, and the action of the authorities in appointing scientists to

collect the samples of crop for analysis, without giving any notice, would

result in failure of statutory process and would become vitiated.

4. Section 15 (1) and (2) of the Seeds Act, 1966, which is relevant for

the present case, reads thus:

15. Procedure to be followed by Seed Inspectors -

(1) Whenever a Seed Inspector intends to take sample of any

seed of any notified kind or variety for analysis, he shall-

(a) give notice in writing, then and there, of such intention

to the person from whom he intends to take sample;

(b) except in special cases provided by rules made under

this Act, take three representative samples in the prescribed

manner and mark and seal or fasten up each sample in such

manner as its nature permits.

(2) When samples of any seed of any notified kind or variety are

taken under sub-section (1), the Seed Inspector shall-

(a) deliver one sample to the person from whom it has been

taken;

(b) send in the prescribed manner another sample for analysis HCJ & DVSSS, J

to the Seed Analyst for the area within which such sample has

been taken; and

(c) retain the remaining sample in the prescribed manner

for production in case any legal proceedings are taken or for

analysis by the Central Seed Laboratory under sub-section (2)

of section 16, as the case may be.

5. A plain reading of the above quoted provision would indicate that

notice has to be given to the person from whom the Seed Inspector

intends to take samples. In the instant case, as could be seen from the

material on record, on the basis of the complaint made by the farmers

that the paddy variety supplied by the petitioners is not up to the mark, a

committee consisting of Scientists, Seed Inspectors and officials from the

Agriculture Department collected the samples from the fields of the

farmers but not from the premises of the petitioners. Therefore, issuance

of the notice to the petitioners at this stage does not arise.

6. Admittedly, the stage of initiating any legal proceedings against the

petitioners has not yet taken place. If any such legal proceedings are

sought to be initiated against the petitioners based on the samples

collected from the fields of the farmers, it will always remain open for

them to take recourse of pursuing legal remedies available to them under

the Act. Apart from that, under sub-section 2 (c) of Section 15 of the Act,

one of the samples out of three samples taken by the authorities is to be

retained by the Seed Inspector in the prescribed manner for production in

case any legal proceedings are taken or for analysis by the Central Seed

laboratory under sub-section (2) of Section 16, as the case may be, and

therefore, such sample would be available for production or analysis in HCJ & DVSSS, J

case any legal proceedings are sought to be initiated against the

petitioners.

7. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the

writ petition preferred by the writ petitioners is premature and the learned

single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.

8. The Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. No costs. All

pending miscellaneous applications shall stand dismissed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J Nn HCJ & DVSSS, J

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

W.A. No.593 OF 2022

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

Dt:20.07.2022

Nn