[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
M/S Prism Crop Science.Ltd vs The State Of Telangana on 6 April, 2026
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.10131 OF 2026
DATE: 06.04.2026
Between :
M/s. Prism Crop Science. LTD,
Rep. by its Legal Assistant, Venumuddala Bharath Kumar,
... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Agriculture & Cooperation Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
...Respondents
ORDER
Heard Sri K. Sridhar Rao, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General
of India appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.
SN,J
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking
prayer as under:
"...to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the
inaction of Respondent No. 1 and 2 in not integrating
the bio-stimulants and their formulations, as approved
and notified by Central Government under the FCO,
into the Online License Management System as illegal
and arbitrary and; declaring the inactions of the
Respondent No. 3 in not disposing the applications for
inclusion of specifications of bio-stimulants in Schedule
VI and extending the validity period of provisional
registrations for bio-stimulants thereby effectively
prohibiting manufacturers and importers from
manufacturing, importing, storing and selling such bio-
stimulants being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of
principles of natural justice and prejudicial the rights of
the Petitioners and pass such other order or orders as
this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case....."
3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the
averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner
in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:-
i) The Petitioner is engaged in manufacturing and selling
agricultural bio-stimulants, which were brought under the
Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 through a notification dated
SN,J
23.02.2021 introducing provisional and permanent
registration.
ii) The Petitioner complied with all requirements and
operated under valid provisional registration while applying
for permanent approval, however, its application remains
pending.
iii) Subsequently, by notification dated 18.03.2025, the
Government restricted the sale of provisionally registered
products beyond 16.06.2025 without providing a proper
transition mechanism, rendering existing lawful products
unsellable. Further, the Respondents failed to integrate
approved products into the OLMS or extend provisional
registrations. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
PERUSED THE RECORD:
A) The relevant portion of the order of this Court
dated 19.11.2025 passed in W.P.No.32026 of 2025 is
extracted hereunder:
"4. Having regard to the submissions of the
petitioners that the products which are in their custody
SN,J
are stated to be manufactured during the validity of the
license and the labeling on the products would also
specify the date of manufacture and further, it is stated
that the products are with the distributors, the
respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to
sell such of the products and if it is found that any of
the product which is up for sale in the market and is
beyond the period of license i.e., it is not manufactured
during the period of license, then the petitioners shall
be liable for appropriate action in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs."
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is
squarely covered by the order of this Court dated
19.11.2025 passed in W.P.No.32026 of 2025, and hence,
the petitioner in the present writ petition is also entitled for
the same relief as extended to the petitioner in
W.P.No.32026 of 2025.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Stamps and Registration appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India appearing on behalf of respondent
SN,J
No.3 do not dispute the said submission made by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
6. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:
a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case,
b) The submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the
learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Cooperation appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1
and 2 and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
appearing on behalf of respondent No.3,
c) The order of this Court dated 19.11.2025
passed in W.P.No.32026 of 2025 (referred to and
extracted above),
d) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at
paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the present order,
The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the
order of this Court dated 19.11.2025 passed in
W.P.No.32026 of 2025. The respondents are directed
SN,J
to permit the petitioner to sell such of the products
and if it is found that any of the product which is up
for sale in the market and is beyond the period of
license i.e., it is not manufactured during the period of
license, then the petitioner shall be liable for
appropriate action in accordance to law. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ
Petition, shall stand closed.
___________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Date: 06.04.2026
LPD
