Karnataka High Court
Sri Gururaja Trading Company vs Director Of Agriculture on 6 February, 2024
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 24.01.2024/30.01.2024 (WP NO.14415/2023)
Pronounced on : 06.02.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.28597 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.14195 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
WRIT PETITION No.14227 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
WRIT PETITION No.14355 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
WRIT PETITION No.14389 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
WRIT PETITION No.14401 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
WRIT PETITION No.14408 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
WRIT PETITION No.14415 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
WRIT PETITION No.14424 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
WRIT PETITION No.14530 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
WRIT PETITION No.16727 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
IN WRIT PETITION No.28597 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI GURURAJA TRADING COMPANY
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
PLOT NO.344,
NEAR COFFEE BOARD,
ROAD NO.17, L-PARK,
HASSAN - 573 201
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/PARTNER,
MR.B.SRIDHARA.
RESPONSIBLE PERSON UNDER
CLAUSE 24 OF FCO
(FERTILISER CONTROL ORDER) 1985.
2. SREE MANJUNATHA FERTILIZERS
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN,
GROUND FLOOR, NO.652,
GANAPATHI GODOWN,
TUMAKURU ROAD,
YESHWANTHPUR INDUSTRIAL SUBURB,
BENGALURU - 560 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR.A. ANNAMALAI
RESPONSIBLE PERSON UNDER
CLAUSE 24 OF FCO
(FERTILISER CONTROL ORDER) 1985.
3. M/S. PEREGRINE PHOSPHATE PVT. LTD.,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
NO.84/2, NANDUR KESARATAGI
AREA, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SHAHABAD ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 228
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR SRINIDHI D.K.,
RESPONSIBLE PERSON UNDER
CLAUSE 24 OF FCO
(FERTILISER CONTROL ORDER) 1985.
4. M/S. GHATPRABHA FERTILIZERS PVT. LTD.,
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
NO.249/1, AT/P. NANDIKURALI,
3
RAIBAG TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 591 317
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR. KAILASH RAJARAM PURAMWAR
RESPONSIBLE PERSON UNDER
CLAUSE 24 OF FCO
(FERTILISER CONTROL ORDER) 1985.
5. KARNATAKA FERTILIZERS AND
CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
NO.77/P7,
KIADB KESARATAGI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
FIRST PHASE, SHAHBAD ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102
MR. ANIL KUMAR KULAKARNI PARTNER
JYOTHI NAYAK,
RESPONSIBLE PERSON UNDER
CLAUSE 24 OF FCO
(FERTILISER CONTROL ORDER) 1985.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT.MANASI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR (DBT)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS,
DEPARTMENT OF FERTILIZERS,
SHASTRI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
4
DEPARTMENT OF FERTILIZERS,
SHASTRI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
3. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE,
SESHADRI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R1 AND R2;
SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING
THEM TO FORTHWITH REGISTER/ UPDATE AND APPROVE THE
REGISTERED MIXTURE MANUFACTURING APPROVAL OPTION IN
THE IFMS PORTAL AS PER ANNEXURE-A. VIDE NO. DDA (F AND M)
/FQC/48/2023-24 DATED 01/08/2023.
IN WRIT PETITION No.14195 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI GURURAJA TRADING COMPANY
REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN
PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932.
PLOT NO.344, NEAR COFFEE BOARD
ROAD NO.17, L-PARK
HASSAN - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/PARTNER
MR.B.SRIDHARA
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE A/W
5
SMT.MANASI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
(FERTILIZER AND PLANT PROTECTION)
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF LICENSE DTD 17.06.2023 ISUED BY
THE R2 AT ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE R1 TO MAKE ALLOCATION
OF NECESSARY RAW MATERIAL FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF
MIXTURE FERTILIZER AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.14227 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. EXCEED CORP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,
6
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
PLOT NO.17 AND 26, NO.256P, 268P, 273P
KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA
VILLAGE KOORGALLY
ILAWALA HOBLI
MYSURU - 570 018
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. EKANTHAREDDY B. KA
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT.MANASI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
(FERTILIZER AND PLANT PROTECTION)
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
DEPATMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF LICENSE DTD 17.06.2023 ISSUED
BY THE R2 AT ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE R1 TO MAKE
7
ALLOCATION OF NECESSARY RAW MATERIAL FOR THE
MANUFACTURE OF MIXTURE FERTILIZER AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.14355 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SREE MANJUNATHA FERTILIZERS
GROUND FLOOR, NO.652
GANAPATHIGODOWN
TUMAKURU ROAD
YESHWANTHPUR INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
BENGALURU - 560 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR.A.ANNAMALAI
REGISTERED UNDER SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT.MANASI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
(FERTILIZER AND PLANT PROTECTION)
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
8
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF LICENSE DTD 17.06.2023 ISSUED
BY THE R-2 AT ANNX-A; DIRECTING THE R-1 TO MAKE
ALLOCATION OF NECESSARY RAW MATERIAL FOR THE
MANUFACTURE OF MIXTURE FERTILIZER AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.14389 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
FARMERS AGRO CARE COMPANY
GODOWN NO.2 PLOT NO.1A,
KUSHALNAGAR INDL. AREA,
KUDLUR, KUSHALANAGAR,
KODAGU
KARNATAKA - 571 234
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR.N.A.THIMMAIAH
IT IS GOVERNED UNDER
INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT.MANASI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
9
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
(FERTILIZER AND PLANT PROTECTION)
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF LICENSE DTD 13.06.2023 ISSUED
BY R-2 AT ANNX-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.14401 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
RAICHUR CHEMICALS AND
FERTILIZERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,
456 A, RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR,
KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU URBAN
KARNATAKA - 560 092,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. LAXMANSHIVALINGAPPPASONAKAMBALE
APPROVED BY KARNATAKA GOODS
AND SERVICE TAX ACT, 2017
10
REGISTERED AS PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT.MANASI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
(FERTILIZER AND PLANT PROTECTION)
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF LICENSE DTD 17.06.2023 ISSUED
BY R-2 AT ANNX-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.14408 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
JAI JAWAN ENTERPRISES
GODOWN NO.2, PLOT NO.267-268
MANJUNATHA CONCRETE
11
STRUCTURES COMPOUND
INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE,
NEAR KIADB OFFICE
H.N.PURA ROAD, HASSAN,
KARNATAKA - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR RAMESH C.S.,
IT IS REGISTERED UNDER
INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT.MANASI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
(FERTILIZER AND PLANT PROTECTION)
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE, SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF LICENSE DATED 17/06/2023 ISSUED
BY R2 BEARING NO 47A-11/2023-24 AT ANNEXURE-A; DIRECTING
12
THE R1 TO MAKE ALLOCATION OF NECESSARY RAW MATERIAL FOR
THE MANUFACTURE OF MIXTURE FERTILIZER AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.14415 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
AGRI ORGANICS
REGISTERED UNDER
INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
SPL-191,
HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MYSURU, KARNATAKA - 570 016
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR.K.M.THIMMAIAH.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT.MANASI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
(FERTILIZER AND PLANT PROTECTION) AND
REGISTERING AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
13
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF LICENSE DTD 17.06.2023 ISSUED
BY R-2 AT ANNX-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.14424 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
FARMERS FERTILIZER COMPANY
PLOT NO.324
KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA
OPP. KRISHNA GRANITES
H.N.PURA ROAD
HASSAN - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. LAKSHMEGOWDA
IT IS CONSTITUTED UNDER
PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932.
INCHARGE REPRESENTATIVE OF
FARMERS FERTILIZER COMPANY
(RESPONSIBLE PERSON)
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT.MANASI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
14
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
(FERTILIZER AND PLANT PROTECTION)
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF LICENSE DTD 17.06.2023 ISSUED
BY THE R-2 AT ANNX-A; DIRECTING THE R-1 TO MAKE
ALLOCATION OF NECESSARY RAW MATERIALS FOR THE
MANUFACTURE OF MIXTURE FERTILIZER AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.14530 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SREE LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA INDUSTRIES
IT IS REGISTERED UNDER
INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
NO.35/2, 6TH MAIN ROAD
SINGASANDRA HOSUR MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU URBAN - 560 068.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
15
MR.N.LOKESH.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT.MANASI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
(FERTILIZER AND PLANT PROTECTION)
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF LICENSE DTD 13.06.2023 ISSUED
BY THE R-2 AT ANNX-A; DIRECTING THE R-1 TO MAKE
ALLOCATION OF NECESSARY RAW MATERIALS FOR THE
MANUFACTURE OF MIXTURE FERTILIZER AND ETC.,
16
IN WRIT PETITION No.16727 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S.T. STANES AND COMPANY LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1882,
C/O MYSORE FERTILISERS COGODOWN,
B.M.ROAD, DODDAMANDIGANAHALLI,
KANDALI POST, HASSAN
KARNATAKA - 573 201.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/MANAGER,
MR. VENKATARAMANARAO.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT.MANASI SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
(FERTILIZER AND PLANT PROTECTION)
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE
OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)
17
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE
ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF LICENSE DATED 13/06/2023 ISSUED
BY R2 AT ANNEXURE-A; B. DIRECTING THE R1 TO MAKE
ALLOCATION OF NECESSARY RAW MATERIAL FOR THE
MANUFACTURE OF MIXTURE FERTILIZER AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.01.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners in these cases are all trading companies
engaged in the trade of fertilizers. The common stream that runs
through in all these petitions is the challenge to the cancellation of
licences of the petitioners by the 1st respondent/State. Since
grounds urged and orders of cancellation passed are identical, they
are taken up together and considered by this common order. For
the sake of convenience facts obtaining in Writ Petition No.14195 of
2023 would be noticed.
2. The facts adumbrated are as follows:-
The petitioner in W.P.No.14195 of 2023 claims to be a
registered Company engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers and
holding the licence issued by the respondent/State in the name and
style of 'NPK Mixture Manufacturer' in terms of the Fertilizer
(Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Control Order'
for short). The petitioner has been in the business and possesses a
licence issued by the respondent/State from time to time, the latest
of which is issued on 14-12-2021 valid up to 31-12-2024. Likewise
in all these petitions, the licenses are now subsisting. On two dates
viz., 22-03-2022 and 23-04-2023 a team of officers belonging to
the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India along with
officials of the Department of Agriculture of the State of Karnataka
conduct a surprise search in the premises of the petitioners'
Companies which leads to an order being issued by the Assistant
Director of Agriculture and the Fertilizer Inspector under the Control
Order a stop sale notice to all the petitioners/Companies restraining
them from selling fertilizers citing certain reasons which are based
upon observations made by the officers of Government of India.
The petitioners submitted their replies to the said notice and no
action is said to have been taken immediately thereafter. After over
a month of the said stop sale notice and submission of the reply
comes a show cause notice from the State Government on 08-05-
2023 seeking to show cause as to why licenses of the petitioners in
all these cases should not be cancelled. The petitioners submit their
replies to the show cause notice on 15-05-2023 which results in
passing of the impugned order cancelling the licenses of the
petitioners. It is the cancellation of licenses that has driven the
petitioners to this Court in these cases.
3. Heard Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in all these cases, Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned
Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents 1 and 2
in W.P.No.28597 of 2023 and Smt. Navya Shekar, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent
No.3/State in W.P.No.28597 of 2023 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in
all other petitions.
4. The learned counsel Sri Nitin Ramesh appearing for the
petitioners in all these cases would vehemently contend that
cancellation of a licence is dealt with under Clause 31 of the Control
Order. No procedure worth the name is even followed by the
respondents before effecting cancellation of licenses. It is his other
submission that the notice was issued on 23-03-2023 and in terms
of sub-clause (2) of Clause 28, if no action is taken within 15 days
thereafter, it would be deemed revocation of the licence. Therefore,
the show cause notice so issued and the order of cancellation of
licenses suffer from non-application of mind. He would seek
quashing of order of cancellation of licence for it being violative of
the procedure stipulated under Clause 31 of the Control Order.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government
Advocate Smt. Navya Shekar would vehemently refute the
submissions and strenuously contend that the petitioners are
hoodwinking the public, when they have licence to sell only
particular fertilizer, they had stored mixed fertilizers for sale which
would lead to jeopardizing the rights of farmers. She would, by
taking this Court through the elaborate statement of objections, to
bring home the violation against every one of the petitioners in
each of the petitions in defence of the action cancelling the licenses
of these petitioners would submit that the objections so filed should
be taken note of as if it is in public interest and the Court should
also take note of all the factors that have led to the cancellation of
licenses.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder to the
aforesaid submissions of the learned Additional Government
Advocate would contend that elaborate objections are filed and
submissions are made, but none of them form part of the orders
impugned as the orders suffer from non-application of mind, as no
reasons are communicated for cancellation of licenses.
7. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan would seek to defend the action by
contending that it is no law that Government of India cannot search
any premises with the assistance of the officers of the State. What
is revealed in the search is what is important, as the petitioners are
all guilty of violating the conditions of licence and no fault can be
found in the action of the State in independently considering the
defence of each of the petitioners and cancelling their licences. He
would refute the submission that licenses are cancelled at the
behest of Government of India. Mere presence of officers of
Government of India cannot mean that the State is under pressure
or influenced by Government of India to pass orders of cancellation.
He would also seek dismissal of the petitions.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. What has
driven these petitioners to this Court is orders of cancellation of
their licenses. The orders of cancellation are passed on different
dates in these petitions, but nonetheless all challenge the orders of
cancellation of licenses passed by the State Government. It is not in
dispute that all these Companies are rendered licenses for NPK
fertilizer mixtures. The State submits the requirement for fertilizers
to the Central Government on the basis of previous years'
consumption every year and the State then allocates the fertilizers
that would be supplied to the Companies who in turn make it
available to wholesale dealers of fertilizers and retailers. The raw
materials are supplied by the Central Government. The State
Government then is responsible for manufacture of mixture of
fertilizer making use of the raw material supplied by the Central
Government for the purpose of catering to the needs of farmers qua
certain crops. The State issues licenses to the applicants to
manufacture fertilizer of mixture and sell them as such. All the
petitioners possess licenses to manufacture fertilizer of mixture and
not retail licenses. These facts are not in dispute.
10. The search conducted in every one of the units of the
petitioners resulted in cancellation of licenses. The cancellation of
licenses is on the score that the petitioners are found to have
purchased and stored different composition of NPK contrary to the
conditions of licence which was said to be in violation of the
guidelines issued by Government of India and the Control Order.
There are different violations of different kinds alleged in all these
cases. The search takes place on two dates viz., 22-03-2022 and
23-04-2023. This results in a stop sale notice being issued to the
petitioners. As an illustration the stop sale notice issued to the
petitioner in W.P.No.14195 of 2023 is noticed. It reads as follows:
"gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ ªÀiÁgÁl vÀqÉ DzÉñÀ
PÀȶ C¢üPÁj ºÁUÀÆ
gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ ¥Àj«ÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ,
gÉÊvÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð PÉÃAzÀæ,
PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½, ºÁ¸À£À vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ
¢£ÁAPÀ:23-03-2023
¸ÀASÉå:PÀÈ.C/PÀÈ.¸ÀA.PÉÃA/PÀ¸À¨Á/UÀÄ.gÁ/2022-23
ªÀiÁgÁl vÀqÉ DzÉñÀ
gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ (¤gÀªÀAiÀĪÀ ¸ÁªÀAiÀĪÀ CxÀªÁ «Ä²ævÀ) (¤AiÀÄAvÀæt) DzÉñÀ 1985 PÁè¸ï 28(2)
UÉ,
ªÉÄ|| SRI GURURAJA TRADING CO.
Plot No.344, Industrial Growth Centre,
Near Coffee Board, Road No.17,
L-Park, HASSAN - 573201.
«µÀAiÀÄ: ªÉÄ|| UÀÄgÀÄgÁd mÉæÃrAUï PÀA. E°è EgÀĪÀ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀUÀ¼À zÁ¸ÁÛ£À£ÀÄß
ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀzÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.
***
F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, F PɼÀUÉ «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ ¤ªÀÄä ¸Áé¢üãÀzÀ°ègÄÀ ªÀ
gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ zÁ¸ÁÛ£À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ F ¢£À ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ (¤gÀªÀAiÀĪÀ ¸ÁªÀAiÀĪÀ
CxÀªÁ «Ä²ævÀ) (¤AiÀÄAvÀæt) DzÉñÀ, 1985 PÁè¸ï 34(a), 11 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ
¨Á»gÀªÁV ºÀAaPÉ/ªÀiÁgÁl, G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj
gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ zÁ¸ÁÛ£À£ÀÄß EA¢¤AzÀ ªÀÄÄA¢£À DzÉñÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ AiÀiÁjUÀÆ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀzÀAvÉ F
ªÀÄÆ®PÀ DzÉò¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
F ªÀiÁgÁl vÀqÉ DzÉñÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀlÖ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ zÁ¸ÁÛ¤£À «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
PÀæ.¸ÀA. gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀzÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt
(ªÉÄ.l£ï)
1 AiÀÄÆjAiÀiÁ 674 MT
2 r.J.¦ 384 MT
3 JA.M.¦ 236 MT
4 J¸ï.J¸ï.¦ 84 MT
¸À»/-
PÀȶ C¢üPÁj
ºÁUÀÆ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ ¥Àj«ÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ
gÉÊvÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð PÉÃAzÀæ, PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆÃ.
ºÁ¸À£À vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ."
The stop sale notice is issued invoking Clause 34(a) and 11 of the
Control Order. The petitioner replies to the stop sale notice and the
reply submitted on 31-03-2023 reads as follows:
UÉ,
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÀȶ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ / PÀȶ C¢üPÁj
PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ
ºÁ¸À£À.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: ¤ÃªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.03.2023 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¨sËwPÀ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ «Ä±Àæt WÀlPÀPÌÉ
¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ DzÉñÀ 85 gÀ G®èAWÀ£É PÀÄjvÀÄ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀUÀ¼À
zÁ¸ÁÛ£À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀzÀAvÉ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀªÀiÁeÁ¬Ä¹.
F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA¨sÀA¢¹zÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä E¯ÁSÉ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¨sËwPÀ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ
«Ä±Àæt ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀUÀlÄ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ ªÀiÁgÁl ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛêÉ, vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀĽUÉUÉ ¨sÉÃn ¤ÃrzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÄÀ
PÉýzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß, ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀPÀðªÁV MzÀV¸À®Ä ¸ÁzÀåªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÁV F CfðAiÀÄ
eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è J¯Áè zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ. £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ F ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ªÉÄïÉ
CªÀ®A©vÀgÁVgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è ºÀvÁÛgÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀjUÉ GzÉÆåÃUÀ PÀ®à¹gÀÄvÉÛêÉ
CªÀgÀ ¤vÀå fêÀ£À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ F ¸ÀA¸ÉܬÄAzÀ £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉÊvÀjUÉ ¸ÀPÁ®zÀ°è
gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀªÀ£ÀÄß a®ègÉ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ ªÀiÁgÁlUÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀæ gÉÊvÀjUÉ ºÁUÀÄ
a®ègÉ ªÁå¥ÁgÀ¸ÀÛjUÉ GvÀÛªÀÄ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀªÀ£ÀÄß «vÀgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ ºÁUÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ F
¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ RZÁÑ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Rjâ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ ºÁUÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ
23.03.2023 jAzÀ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÄaÑgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ DyðPÀªÁV ºÁUÀÄ
£ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É CªÀ®A©vÀgÁVgÀĪÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ fêÀ£ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É vÀÄA¨Á ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ
©ÃjgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ F jÃw DUÀzÀAvÉ JZÀÑgÀªÀ»¹ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛêÉ
DzÀÝjAzÀ zÀAiÀĪÀiÁr gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ ªÀiÁgÁl vÀqÉ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À¨ÉÃPÁV vÀªÄÀ ä°è
ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛêÉ.
F ¥ÀvÀæzÀ eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁÖPï jf¸ÀÖgï, ¥ÉÆæqÉPÀë£ï jf¸ÀÖgï, ªÀiÁgÁlzÀ jf¸ÀÖgï ºÁUÀÄ
RjâAiÀÄ POS©®ÄèUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ
¸À»/-
vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹."
Nothing comes about thereafter. On 08-05-2023 a show cause
notice comes to be issued as to why the licence granted to the
petitioner should not be cancelled. The show cause notice reads as
follows:
"PÁgÀt PÉüÀĪÀ £ÉÆÃnøï
«µÀAiÀÄ: gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ (¤AiÀÄAvÀæt) DzÉñÀ, 1985 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CUÀvÀå ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1955
Section 3 C£ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: ºÉZÀÄѪÀj PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ E¯ÁSÉ, PÉÃAzÀæ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ EªÀgÀ
D.O.No.02/Insp/2022-FFS. ¢£ÁAPÀ:26.04.2023.
***
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ E¯ÁSÉ, PÉÃAzÀæ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÅÀ
¤AiÉÆÃf¹zÀ vÀAqÀzÉÆA¢UÉ «Ä±Àæt gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ WÀlPÀ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ¥Àj«ÃPÀëPÀgÄÀ ,
¢£ÁAPÀ:23.03.2023 gÀAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä WÀlPÀPÉÌ C¤jÃQëvÀ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ
(¤AiÀÄAvÀæt) DzÉñÀ, 1985 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CUÀvÀå ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1955 Section 3 C£ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É
ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæ¢AzÀ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ (¥Àæw ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ). ®UÀwÛ¹gÀĪÀ
G®èAWÀ£ÉUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ KPÉ ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ «Ä±Àæt gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ GvÁàzÀ£Á
¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ UÉƽ¸À¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JA§ÄzÀPÉÌ F £ÉÆÃnøï vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 7 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À M¼ÀUÉ
¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, vÀ¦àzÀ°è ¤ªÀÄä ºÉýPÉ K£ÀÄ E®èªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹
gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ (¤AiÀÄAvÀæt) DzÉñÀ, 1985 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CUÀvÀå ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1955 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ
PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ.
¸À»/-
dAn PÀȶ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ
(gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ & ¸À¸Àå ¸ÀAgÀPÀëuÉ)
ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV ¥Áæ¢üPÁj."
The petitioner then submits a detailed reply to the show cause
notice explaining the circumstances. The reply so submitted by the
petitioner runs into four pages and every circumstance narrated in
the show cause notice is replied threadbare by the petitioner.
Likewise, the petitioners in all these cases have replied. This results
in the impugned order dated 17-06-2023 being issued cancelling
the licence. The impugned order reads as follows:
"¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É:
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ E¯ÁSÉ, PÉÃAzÀæ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÅÀ
¤AiÉÆÃfzÀ vÀAqÀzÉÆA¢UÉ D ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ ¥Àj«ÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.03.2023 gÀAzÀÄ
¤ªÀÄä «Ä±Àæt gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ vÀAiÀiÁjPÀ WÀlPÀPÉÌ C¤jÃQëvÀ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ
(¤AiÀÄAvÀæt) DzÉñÀ, 1985 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CUÀvÀå ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1955 Section 3 C£ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É
ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR-1 gÀ ¥ÀvÀæ¢AzÀ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj G®èAWÀ£ÉUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ
G¯ÉèÃR-2gÀ°è PÁgÀt PÉý £ÉÆÃn¸ï eÁj ªÀiÁr 07 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¤ÃqÀ®Ä w½¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. ¤ÃªÀÅ G¯ÉèÃR-3gÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj £ÉÆÃnøï UÉ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¤ÃrgÀÄwÛÃj DzÀgÉ, ¤ªÀÄä «Ä±Àæt gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ GvÁázÀ£Á WÀlPÀzÀ°è Rjâ¹gÀĪÀ ¸À©ìr
gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀUÀ¼À zÁ¸ÁÛ¤UÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ iFMS vÀAvÁæA±ÀzÀ°è£À zÁ¸ÁÛ¤UÀÆ ªÀåvÁå¸À«gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ ºÀAaPÉ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¤ÃqÀzÀ ¸À©ìr gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß
(20:20:0:13, 16:20:0:13 & 15:15:15) Rjâ¹ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀÄ PÉÃAzÀæ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆa ¸ÀASÉå:15011/18/2017/DBT
¢£ÁAPÀ:23.05.2018gÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E¯ÁSÁ ºÀAaPÉ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤§AzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼À
G®èAWÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
«Ä±Àæt gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ vÀAiÀiÁjPÀ WÀlPÀzÀ°è ¤ªÀð»¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¸À©ìr gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ Rjâ,
«Ä±Àæt gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ GvÁàzÀ£É, «Ä±Àæt gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ ªÀiÁgÁlzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «Ä±Àæt gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ ªÀiÁzÀj
«±ÉèõÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÀ»UÀ¼À£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃR(3)gÀAvÉ, PÀȶ C¢üPÁj ºÁUÀÆ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ ¥Àj«ÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, gÉÊvÀ
¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð PÉÃAzÀæ, PÀ¸À¨Á, ºÁ¸À£À EªÀjUÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÁV ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ°è w½¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
¸ÀjAiÀĵÉÖÃ. DzÀgÉ, ¸ÀzÀj zÀÈrüPÀj¹zÀ ªÀ»UÀ¼À£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃR(2)gÀ PÁgÀt PÉý £ÉÆÃnøï UÉ
¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ°è ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. EzÀjAzÁV «Ä±Àæt gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ GvÁàzÀ£Á
WÀlPÀzÀ°è ¤ªÀð»¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀ»UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸À¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ /update ªÀiÁqÀ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀÄ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ (¤AiÀÄAvÀæt) DzÉñÀ, 1985 PÁè¸ï 35(1)(a) gÀ
G®èAWÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀPÁgÀt ¤ÃªÀÅ G¯ÉèÃR(2)gÀ PÁgÀt PÉý £ÉÆÃnøï UÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ
¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¹ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ.
DzÉñÀ
ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ªÉÄ|| ²æà UÀÄgÀÄgÁd mÉæÃrAUï PÀA¥À¤,
EAqÀ¹ÖçÃAiÀįï UÉÆæÃvï ¸ÉAlgï, ¥Áèmï £ÀA.344 PÁ¦ü ¨ÉÆÃqïð ºÀwÛgÀ, gÀ¸ÉÛ £ÀA.17, J¯ï ¥ÁPïð,
ºÁ¸À£À, DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ (¤AiÀÄAvÀæt) DzÉñÀ, 1985 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CUÀvÀå ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1955
Section 3 £ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÁzÀ
£Á£ÀÄ gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ (¤AiÀÄAvÀæt) DzÉñÀ, 1985 PÁè¸ï 31(2)gÀr ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹
vÀPÀët¢AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¨sËwPÀ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ J£ï.¦.PÉ «Ä±Àæt gÀ¸ÀUÉƧâgÀ
GvÁàzÀ£Á ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV "FORM-F" (JDA/FPP/MIX/NPK/365/2021-
22, ¢£ÁAPÀ:14.12.2021)£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉƽ¹ DzÉò¹zÉ."
(Emphasis added)
The impugned order notices in its preamble with regard to search
and seizure, but the order of cancellation of licence does not bear
any reason in consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner.
On its perusal what would unmistakably emerge is that it suffers
from want of application of mind.
11. After the challenge to these orders in these petitions, the
State files its statement of objections. The statement of objections
is elaborate. Every contention advanced by the petitioners is replied
to in the statement of objections. None of the reasons so indicated
in the statement of objections are even remotely found in the
impugned orders of cancellation of licenses. Cancellation of licenses
of the licensees would undoubtedly result in economic and civil
consequences. Though notice is issued prior to cancellation of
licenses, the reply supplied by the Companies against whom such
show cause notices are issued should bear consideration in the
order of cancellation of licenses. The cancellation of licence is
defended by quoting several allegations in the statement of
objections. As a matter of fact, the learned Additional Government
Advocate has made herculean effort to defend the action by quoting
instances in each petition which leads to cancellation of licence.
These ought to have borne consideration in the order and not an
action that can be defended by filing statement of objections. It is
trite law that an order which is bad at the time of challenge for it
being wanting reasons cannot be supplemented by furnishing
reasons in the statement of objections when challenge is brought
before the Court. In defence of the said challenge reasons are to be
found in the order itself more particularly if the order entails civil
and economic consequences against any person.
12. Now it becomes apposite to refer to the judgments
rendered by the Apex Court from time to time. The Apex Court in
the case of MOHINDER SINGH GILL v. CHIEF ELECTION
COMMISSIONER1 has held as follows:
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when
a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain
grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so
mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons
in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an
order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to
court on account of a challenge, get validated by
additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw
attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas
Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji,
1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] :
"Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a
statutory authority cannot be construed in the light
of explanations subsequently given by the officer
making the order of what he meant, or of what was
in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public
orders made by public authorities are meant to
have public effect and are intended to affect the
actings and conduct of those to whom they are
addressed and must be construed objectively with
reference to the language used in the order itself."
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as
they grow older."
(Emphasis supplied)
The said judgment is followed by the Apex Court in the case of
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BANDEEP SINGH2 wherein it is held as
follows:
(1978) 1 SCC 405
(2016) 1 SCC 724
"4. There can be no gainsaying that every decision
of an administrative or executive nature must be a
composite and self-sustaining one, in that it should
contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official
taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. It is
beyond cavil that any authority cannot be permitted to
travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in
the impugned action. If precedent is required for this
proposition it can be found in the celebrated decision
titled Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election
Commr. [(1978) 1 SCC 405 : (1978) 2 SCR 272] of which
the following paragraph deserves extraction: (SCC p. 417,
para 8)
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that
when a statutory functionary makes an order based
on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by
the reasons so mentioned and cannot be
supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of
affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in
the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on
account of a challenge, get validated by additional
grounds later brought out. We may here draw
attention to the observations of Bose, J.
in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of
Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR
1952 SC 16 : 1952 SCR 135] : (AIR p. 18, para 9)
'9. ... public orders, publicly made, in exercise
of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the
light of explanations subsequently given by the
officer making the order of what he meant, or of
what was in his mind, or what he intended to do.
Public orders made by public authorities are meant
to have public effect and are intended to affect the
actings and conduct of those to whom they are
addressed and must be construed objectively with
reference to the language used in the order itself.'
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as
they grow older."
... ... ....
8. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has rightly
concluded that no sustainable justification and rationalisation
was recorded in writing at the relevant time for ordering the re-
auction of only the two subject properties. However, we should
not be understood to have opined that the Government is bound
in every case to accept the highest bid above the reserve price.
Needless to say, the presence of cartelisation or "pooling" could
be a reason for the cancellation of an auction process. In
addition, a challenge on the ground that the property has
fetched too low a bid when compared to the prevailing market
price, would also be valid and permissible provided this
approach has been uniformly adhered to. In the case at hand,
however, while the latter was ostensibly the reason behind the
decision for conducting a fresh auction, no evidence has been
placed on the record to support this contention. The highest
bids, marginally above the reserve price, have been accepted in
the selfsame auction. The factual scenario before us is clearly
within the mischief which was frowned upon in Mohinder Singh
Gill [(1978) 1 SCC 405 : (1978) 2 SCR 272] . We, therefore,
uphold the impugned judgment for all the reasons contained
therein. The assailed action of the appellant is not substantiated
in the noting, which ought at least to have been conveyed to the
respondents.
9. The bid of the respondents is already over a decade
old, which is the period the present appeal has been awaiting its
turn in this Court. We must, therefore, balance the equities and
interest of the adversaries before us. It has been submitted by
the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that although
the appellant had addressed a letter to the respondents
purporting to return the sums received from them, the cheque
for this amount was not enclosed with the letter. The fact
remains that these sums continue to be in the coffers of the
appellant. It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
that the balance sale consideration had been tendered by the
respondents to the appellant, who declined to accept it on the
premise that their appeal was pending in this Court. The learned
Senior Counsel suggested that in the endeavour to do justice to
all the parties before this Court, we may direct the respondents
to pay the price of the land at the prevailing circle rates, which
suggestion has readily been accepted by the learned counsel for
the appellant with alacrity."
(Emphasis supplied)
These judgments are yet again reiterated with approval in the case
of 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA3
wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
".... .... ....
100. Valiant attempts have been made by counsel in
the High Court as well as counsel in this Court to support
the order on grounds which are outside the order, stating
that such grounds make it clear that in any case, the
government order has been made in public interest. The
celebrated passage in Mohinder Singh Gill [Mohinder
Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., (1978) 1 SCC 405]
states that : (SCC p. 417, para 8)
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that
when a statutory functionary makes an order based
on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the
reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented
by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or
otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning
may, by the time it comes to court on account of a
challenge, get validated by additional grounds later
brought out. We may here draw attention to the
observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji
[Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC
1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16 : 1952 SCR 135] : (SCR p. 140
: AIR p. 18, para 9)
'9. ... public orders, publicly made, in exercise
of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the
light of explanations subsequently given by the
(2019) 18 SCC 401
officer making the order of what he meant, or of
what was in his mind, or what he intended to do.
Public orders made by public authorities are meant to
have public effect and are intended to affect the
actings and conduct of those to whom they are
addressed and must be construed objectively with
reference to the language used in the order itself.'
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as
they grow older."
We are of the view that it is the Central Government
that has to be "satisfied" that its order is in public
interest and such "satisfaction" must, therefore, be of the
Central Government itself and must, therefore, appear
from the order itself. All these valiant attempts made to
sustain such order must be rejected."
(Emphasis supplied)
Later, the Apex Court in the case of OPTO CIRCUIT INDIA
LIMITED v. AXIS BANK4 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
12. The action sought to be sustained should be
with reference to the contents of the impugned
order/communication and the same cannot be
justified by improving the same through the
contention raised in the objection statement or
affidavit filed before the Court. This has been
succinctly laid down by this Court in Mohinder Singh
Gill v. Chief Election Commr. [Mohinder Singh Gill v.
Chief Election Commr., (1978) 1 SCC 405] as follows :
(SCC p. 417, para 8)
(2021)6 SCC 707
"8. The second equally relevant matter is
that when a statutory functionary makes an
order based on certain grounds, its validity must
be judged by the reasons so mentioned and
cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the
shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an
order bad in the beginning may, by the time it
comes to court on account of a challenge, gets
validated by additional grounds later brought
out. We may here draw attention to the
observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji
[Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951
SCC 1088] : (SCC p. 1095, para 9)
'9. ... public orders, publicly made, in exercise of
a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light
of explanations subsequently given by the officer
making the order of what he meant, or of what was in
his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders
made by public authorities are meant to have public
effect and are intended to affect the actings and
conduct of those to whom they are addressed and
must be construed objectively with reference to the
language used in the order itself.'
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as
they grow older."
In fact, in the instant case such contention of having
exercised power under Section 102 CrPC has not been put
forth even in the counter-affidavit, either in this appeal or
before the High Court and has only been the attempted
ingenuity of the learned Additional Solicitor General. Such
contention, therefore, cannot be accepted. In fact, in the
objection statement filed before the High Court much
emphasis has been laid on the power available under the
PMLA and the same being exercised though without
specifically referring to the power available under Section 17
of the PMLA."
(Emphasis supplied)
If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are considered on the
bedrock of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the
aforesaid judgments, what would unmistakably emerge is that the
defence of the State as projected through the statement of
objections ought to have been found in the orders impugned in all
these cases. They are bereft of reasons. The State cannot supply
the reasons by filing of statement of objections. If regard is had to
what the Apex Court has held in the aforesaid cases, these orders
would be rendered unsustainable.
13. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that procedure stipulated in Clause 31 of the Control
Order which deals with suspension, cancellation or debarment of
registration certificate need not be gone into at this juncture as the
orders are found fault with, on the score that they contain no
reason and suffer from want of application of mind, I deem it
appropriate to leave those contentions open to be urged at the
appropriate time, before the appropriate fora, in appropriate
proceedings.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petitions are allowed in part.
(ii) Orders of cancellation of licenses impugned in all these
cases stand obliterated. Liberty is reserved to the State
to issue show cause notices afresh and permit the
petitioners to reply to those notices and thereafter the
State to consider them and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law. While so doing the State shall bear
in mind the observations made in the course of this
order.
(iii) The State shall issue notices afresh to all these
petitioners within two weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order. The petitioners shall reply to the
same within 4 weeks thereafter and the State shall
within six weeks thereafter consider the same and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law. In all, within
an outer limit of 12 weeks/3 months the entire
proceedings should get concluded.
(iv) All contentions of respective parties are left open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bkp
CT:MJ
