IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.754 of 2009 M/S Hara Bhara Fertilizers (Proprietor) Riga Sugar Company Limited, Dhanuka Gram Riga, P.O. Riga, District- Sitamarhi, through its Authorized Signatory Amar Sharma son of Late Bhagat Ram Sharma. ………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Agriculture Produce Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director of Agriculture cum Notified Authority (Fertilizer), Agriculture Directorate, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Agriculture Officer, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, District-Sitamarhi. ………Respondents ----------- 02. 02.02.2009 The petitioner had a manufacturing certificate of registration granted under the Provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 which was renewed from time to time. When it came to renewal for the period 2007 to 2010, applications having filed before the Director of Agriculture, Government of Bihar by letter dated 14th may, 2008, It was pointed out to the petitioner that there were certain deficiencies in the matter. It may be noted that the application for renewal was filed on 5.4.2007. Petitioner immediately responded by his communication dated 9.6.2008 attempting to rectify the deficiencies as pointed out. One of the deficiencies was with regard to compliance of Clause 21(A) of the F.C.O. He provided a list of equipments etc. that were there with him. No further communication was received. In the meantime, the petitioner came to know that the certificate of - 2 - registration was not being removed because equipments required for laboratory of N.P.K. Mixture Manufacturer was not correctly appended to the renewal application. It sent the details and also pointed out by their communications dated 30.10.2008 and 18.11.2008 that by mistake their office had annexed equipments with regard to soil testing facility instead of Fertilizer Manufacturing Equipment tested apparatus etc. It has now received communication refusing to renew certificate of registration dated 10th September, 2008 under memo No. 6819. Petitioner has annexed the envelop by which the same has been dispatched which clearly shows that the said memo number was dispatched by registered post on 02.01.2009 from the office of the Director of Agriculture. Petitioner submits firstly that when it had already informed the Director of Agriculture of the mistake committed and made good the default, renewal ought not to have been refused on this technicality. Secondly if the Director of Agriculture had any apprehension in the matter, petitioner had requested for inspection as well. Inspection could have been ordered but it seems neither of it was done and renewal was refused on behalf of the State. It is pointed out that the order of the Director of Agriculture is dated 10th September, 2008 whereas the letters of petitioner - 3 - informing about the rectification is dated October and November i.e. after the order refusing renewal was passed. In my view, whatever be the date of order of the Director of Agriculture, the reason for cancellation is mere technicality. Even if the order of refusal to renew was passed earlier in terms of Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, the order becomes effective only when it serve on the person concerned. Admittedly the service of order was in the month of January, 2009, the order itself have been dispatched on the second of January, 2009. It is before the order was served that petitioner had rectified the defects and intimated the authority. Had the authority any doubt about such a laboratory being there, the Director instead of refusing to renew could have ordered an inspection. It must be remembered that a certification of registration is akin to a silence to do business. It is a fundamental right and the same cannot be taken away on mere technicality. The power to seek rectification being there, the same should have been pointed out to the petitioner once again if petitioner admits that by mistake of their office a different set of equipments were mentioned. It was a case of a bona fide mistake which certainly is not actionable. In that view of the matter, in my view, the - 4 - impugned order refusing renewal of certificate of registration can not be sustained on this technicality. However it would be open to the Director of Agriculture if he is not satisfied about the existence of the equipment to order an inspection in this regard. In case it is found that the equipment does not exist then he may take appropriate action for cancellation of the certificate of registration. In view of the aforesaid facts, the writ petition is allowed (Annexure-12), the order refusing renewal is set aside. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel appearing for the State. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)