IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.08.2010 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN W.P.No.34941 of 2006 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 M/s. Sree Ram and Co Rep. by its Partner Mr.Jehanathan No.163, Palladam Road, Puliampatty Pollachi – 642 002. ... Petitioner Vs. Government of India Ministry of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Co-operation Directorate of Marketing and Inspection Regional Office, Sastri Bhavan, Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for records of the impugned order passed by the respondent in Letter No.Q11046/MISGRADING/III/2003 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Anil for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar For Respondent : Mr.K.Ravichandra Babu, SCCG O R D E R This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorari, calling for records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in Letter No.Q11046/MISGRADING/III/2003 and quash the same. 2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a dealer https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ carrying on business of butter and ghee, obtained certification of authorisation from the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development and using AGMARK graded ghee licence under the name and style of "Udhaya Krishna" with the picture of Lord Krishna, which was approved by the authorities. 3. The petitioner has stated that the respondent approved the petitioner's licence for using AGMARK grade vide file No.11030/44/CH/III/95, dated 28.04.1995 for five years and thereafter, the same was subject to renewal and accordingly, it was renewed till 31.03.2010. 4. It is also not in dispute that on 03.01.2006, the respondent's officials, as per procedure took samples relating to the ghee, sold as special grade, by a Senior Marketing Officer, Chennai and that was analysed in the Regional Agmark Laboratory, Chennai on 24.02.2006. After the analysis, the Regional Agmark Laboratory, Chennai, sent analytical report, whereby conveyed that the sample contained R.M.Value of 19.8, though the standard R.M.Value should be 28. Subsequently, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering the defence raised by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed by the respondent. 5. Mr.Anil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court and contended that the petitioner has sent a sample, suomoto to the Italab Private Limited and after analysis, the Reichert Value was decided at 28.8. According to the learned counsel, for the petitioner, the sample was sent on 24.06.2006 and the report was received from the Private Laboratory on 26.06.2006. 6. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, alleged Certificate cannot be relied upon in deciding the issue, since it is self-serving in nature and not binding on the respondent. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the alleged sample was not sent through Court or with the approval of the respondent, but it was sent to the private laboratory, Italab Private Limited, Mumbai. It cannot be decided that the very same sample was sent to the laboratory by the petitioner for analysis. As it was not sent through Court, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, it is only self-serving in nature and the Court cannot have any reliance on the said document to decide the same in favour of the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent drew the attention of this Court to page number 12 of the typed set filed by the writ petitioner, wherein the petitioner has sent a letter dated 27.06.2006 to the Deputy Agricultural Marketing Advisor, Chennai, wherein the petitioner has specifically stated as follows : "But some how this has been happened. We assure that we will ensure that these type of lapses will not occur in future." 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the above words cannot be construed as an admission. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the letter was addressed by the writ petitioner on 27.06.2006 to the Deputy Agricultural Marketing Advisor, Chennai and the copy was also sent to The Agricultural Officer (Chemistry), SAGL, Palladam and to the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Marketing), Coimbatore. 10. As per Indian Evidence Act, it is clear that an admitted fact need not be proved by adducing evidence. It is not in dispute that the letter was addressed by the petitioner, admitting the sample contained R.M.Value 19.8, lesser than the required R.M.Value of 28 and assured that such a lapses will not occur in future. As per Ghee Grading and Marking Rules, 1988, Schedule III-A, it has been made clear that Reichert Meissl value (R.M.Value) for special grade and general should not be less than 28.0. 11. In the instant case, as per the analytical report, the R.M.Value found was only 19.8, which is less than the required R.M.Value, as per the aforesaid Rules. The petitioner herein had not disputed the R.M.Value 19.8 found in the sample and asked to send a sample for reanalysis. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, when there is admission made by the petitioner, by way of sending a written reply, it needs no further proof and therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the admission voluntarily made in the reply. When there is no illegality or violation of any legal provision in the impugned order, the same cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the authority, as per Rule 20 of the General Grading and Marking Rules, 1988, which reads as follows : "Appeal – (1) An appeal may be preferred to the Agricultural Marketing Adviser within 15 days from the date of decision of the concerned competent authority by the person aggrieved by the said decision. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2) The Agricultural Marketing Adviser may call for such documents from the concerned authority and may after such enquiry as considered necessary pass suitable orders which shall be final and binding on all parties concerned : Provided in the cases where Agricultural Marketing Adviser is the competent authority, the appellate authority will be the Central Government." 12. In the instant case, it is not possible for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, within 15 days and there is no error on the part of the respondent in passing the impugned order considering the admission made in the reply stated above, hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. However, the petitioner is permitted to approach the concerned authority, as per Rule 20 of the General Grading and Marking Rules, 1988, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the concerned authority shall decide the same, according to law, solely on merits, without considering the delay, as per Rule 20 of the aforesaid Rules. Till such time of passing the order, interim stay is granted in favour of the petitioner. No order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar tsvn To The Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Co-operation Directorate of Marketing and Inspection Regional Office, Sastri Bhavan, Chennai – 600 006. +1cc to Mr.K.Ravichandra Babu SCGSC Sr 60460 BK(CO) km/28.9. W.P.No.34941 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/