IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11624 of 1999 Between: M/s.Sree Vasavi Fertilizers, Rep.by its Manging Partner Devistetty Nagaeswara Rao, S/o Ramaswamy, R/o Bavirisetty Vari Street, Sattenpalli Town, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Food & Agriculture, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderbad. 2 The Commissioner -cum-Director of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderbad. 3 The J.D. of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur, Collecterate Compound, Guntur District. 4 The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Sattenpalli, Guntur District. 5 The Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Guntur, Collecterate Compound, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in institing the petitioner firm to submit the manual stock registers of the business of Fertilizers, Pesticides and seeds is illegal, arbitrary, unconstituional and offend Art.19(1)(g)(f) and Art.14 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to accept the compurised stock registers and salee reports and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11624 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner is a fertilizers, pesticides and seeds shop in Sattenapalli Town, Guntur District. The vigilance and enforcement team of agriculture officers visited the shop of the petitioner in June 1999. The stock register, bill books and other records were verified. The Agriculture Officer issued a memo, dated 23.06.1998, observing that the petitioner is maintaining the stock register in computerized data and he insisted that the records must be maintained manually. The second objection was that the petitioner did not take the signatures of the farmers on the bills. Thirdly, it was pointed out that though permission was accorded for sale of seeds of ‘ARCH-36’ brand, the packets contained the name of ‘Ankur-36’. Explanation of the petitioner in this regard was sought. The petitioner submitted his explanation within time. It was stated that the records are being maintained through computer to ensure accuracy and the agriculture officer was requested to indicate the provision, under which the records have to be maintained manually. As regards the signatures of the farmers, it is stated that they are necessary only on credit bills and the information was sought as to the provision that requires the signatures of the farmers on cash bills also. As regards the variation in the brand of the seeds, it was stated that the manufacturer has already been addressed in this regard. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, 4th respondent herein issued a memo, dated 22.10.1998, stating inter alia that the petitioner did not produce the manually maintained registers, in spite of the repeated directions and a warning was administered to it, to ensure that the manually maintained registers are produced. Further action was also stated. The last such warning was issued through memo, dated 24.11.1998. The petitioner challenges the memos issued by the 4th respondent. The petitioner contends that when the effort of the Government itself is to introduce computers in every possible activity, to bring about what is known as ‘paperless administration’, there was absolutely no basis for the steps taken by the 4th respondent and other officials. A counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit are filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that there is a possibility of manipulation, if the accounts are maintained through computers and to avoid the same, oral and written instructions were issued from time to time to submit the manually maintained registers. Heard Sri G.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he failed to maintain the stock registers and other records manually. It is not even alleged that the computerized records furnished by the petitioner are found to be either manipulated or otherwise defective. More than once, the petitioner insisted the respondents to indicate the basis for their insistence that the records must be maintained manually. Except repeating that the instructions allegedly received from higher officials and making a reference to circular, dated 16.09.1998 issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture, no provision is mentioned. The Circular is not referable to any provision of law. Here again, it is not insisted that the records must be maintained manually. It is rather curious that the respondents, who day in and day out, use computers with doubled vigor, are insisting on the petitioner to maintain the records manually. Not only the ordinary correspondence, but also the counter affidavit, is filed by the respondent, by using computer. They cannot insist on the petitioner to maintain the records manually. Unless the respondents are able to trace their power to any particular provision, they cannot insist on the petitioner to maintain records manually. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 18.12.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MUK} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11624 of 1999 Date: 18.12.2008 JSU