In one its recently proclaimed judgements, the Bombay High Court had imposed ₹50 lakh fine on agrochemical firm Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt Ltd, in response to, it filing a "frivolous and vexatious" petition seeking an inquiry in respect of manufacturing and marketing of STFR (Soil Testing Fertilizer Recommendations) technology developed by Indian Council for Agriculture Research (ICAR) and Indian Agriculture Research Institute (IARI).

The fine so imposed in the case is payable to both ICAR and IARI.

Bench noted that both the petitions and the intervention application were filed with an "ulterior motive of having commercial gain by eliminating the competition and creating monopoly using the process of the Court." and hence observed-

"In our view, the Court has to be intolerant to such situation and the practice of filing such frivolous and vexatious litigation, without having any genuine interest and lacking in all bona fides. It needs to be curbed and treated with iron hands, so as to deter the litigants from taking the Court for a ride by misusing the process."

The Indian Council for Agriculture Research (ICAR) comes under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare and The Indian Agriculture Research Institute (IARI) is a premier National Institute for agricultural research, education, and expansion and is also a deemed University under the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.

The petitioner company had sought to restrain the marketing of STFR without getting its acceptance at least in five different agro-climatic zones in the country.

But ignoring the words vetted out, STFR technology is commercialized by issuing licenses to 14 companies/firms, including the petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals.

The case also had one moe petitioner named as Anand Embadwar who claimed to be "an Agriculturist, a Social Worker for the welfare of the farmers, and a son of the Ex-Minister of Agriculture in the State of Maharashtra."

The Court after hearing all the submissions and analyzing PIL contents stated that the PIL doesn't give any details, the extent, and as to how and in what manner it falls under IPC Sec-90 (misrepresentation), Section 420 (cheating), Section 425, Section 426 (mischief or fraud).

The Court questions as to how the above-said elements have been practiced upon the farmers and its actual effect on the soil, guided by the recommendations if any.

The bench said-

"We, therefore, find that the petitioner- Anand s/o Nanabhau Embadwar is a person, who can be described as the mouthpiece or spokesperson of Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals and the PIL is being prosecuted without having any public interest or having no intention to subserve the interest of the farmers. The petitioner in the PIL lacks bona fides and genuine public interest. There is one Civil Application No.1467 of 2019 filed by one Bhagwan s/o Rajeram Karmenge, an Agriculturist from Nagpur, supporting the stand taken by the petitioners in both these petitions. The application for intervention is a replica of both these petitions and seeks intervention in the matter. This intervenor also stands on the same footing. We allowed this application and permitted the applicant to intervene in this matter."

The petitioners questioned whether IARI or ICAR have made a representation that the STFR Meter has the capacity to test the soil in respect of 12 parameters, including Copper and Nitrogen and through such representation misled or cheated the farmers or agriculturists and caused damage to the soil and should there be any inquiry in respect of it.

The Court refused to accept this contention and mentioned how beneficial this technology was for the farmers.

It observed:

"It is unfathomable to understand as to how and in what manner the farmers or agriculturists stand cheated. The STFR Meters are purchased by the individuals, self-help groups of villagers, co-operative societies, institutions, etc., by availing subsidy from the licensees of ICAR and IARI and ultimately services of testing of soil are provided to the farmers or agriculturists at the cost of approximately Rs.50 to 60 per sample at their doorstep. It is not the evidence produced on record to show that any of the farmers or agriculturists have suffered actual loss or damage of soil as a result of such services being availed."

It so does dismissed the petition and PIL along with the intervention application and noted:

"We hold that the petitioners or the intervenor have failed to make out any case of misrepresentation, mischief, cheating or fraud on the farmers or other beneficiaries in respect of commercialization of STFR Meter, having the capacity to test the soil with regard to 12 parameters, including Copper and Nitrogen. There is no case made out that the STFR Meter is required to be validated at least in five different agro-climatic zones before its commercialization or that its marketing is required to be stopped."
"On the contrary, we find that both these petitions and the application for intervention are actuated by the ulterior motive of having commercial gain by eliminating the competition and creating monopoly using the process of the Court. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals has made inconsistent and contradictory claims. It did not want to lose the benefits of STFR Meter but wanted its marketing by others to be prohibited. The litigation is unnecessarily dragged on to spend valuable time of the Court for several days and the petitioners and the intervenor are responsible for it."

The Court noted that one of the constituent units of ICAR is Indian Institute of Soil Science (IISS), Bhopal is still working with the petitioner company,

It so concluded:

"It is unfortunate that one of its Units, i.e. IISS, Bhopal, is licensing the promotion of the commercial interest of Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals, which is having a hostile attitude towards its parent establishment. We expect the respondent Nos.2 and 3- ICAR and IARI to initiate and take action for violation of Clause 2.2 of its MoU against the petitioner and to carry it to logical end. If possible, to blacklist the petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals in accordance with the law."

The judgement was delivered by Justice Milind N. Jadhav and Justice R.K. Deshpande on 03-01-2020.

Read judgement Here:

 

Share this Document :

Picture Source :