IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9236 of 2010(D) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SOUTHERN PHOSPHATE AND MINERALS, 31/822-C, PONNURUNNI, OPP: TEMPLE, VYTTILA P.O, KOCHI - 682 019, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M.A.BHASHYAM, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.LATE AYYAPPAN. BY MR.K.S.BABU, ADVOCATE. MS.N. SUDHA, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE (CP), OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE KOTTAYAM. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-30. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO AGRICULTURE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM CIVIL STATION BUILDING, KOTTAYAM BY MR.M.R. SABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9236 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a wholesaler in various fertilizers including urea. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of suspension issued by the 1st respondent, which is produced as Exhibit P2. The main allegation raised is that the urea meant for agricultural purposes has been used for industrial purposes, which is strongly denied by the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner will be supplying urea to the retailers and the allegations especially which were raised through the print media as well as electronic media have no support. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to clause 31 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order 1985 to contend that under clause (1) therein even before passing an order of suspension, the petitioner ought to have been heard. The petitioner has already moved the competent authority by filing Exhibit P5 representation seeking to revoke Exhibit P2 order of W.P.(C) No.9236/2010 2 suspension. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents pointed out that under sub clause (2) of clause 31, provision is there for the authority in case of an emergency to issue order of suspension even by dispensing the provision for granting of an opportunity of being heard. 4. A reading of sub clause (2) and the 1st proviso therein shows that when the order is issued without allowing an opportunity to explain, final orders will have to be passed within 15 days from the date of issue of the order of suspension and under the 2nd proviso therein if no final order is passed within the above period, the order of interim suspension shall be deemed to have been revoked without prejudice, however, to any further action which the registering authority, notified authority or, as the case may be, the Controller may take against the affected person under sub-clause (1). 5. The difficulty experienced by the petitioner as explained in the writ petition, in view of the order of suspension, is that the entire stock in trade is now remaining unutilised which, according W.P.(C) No.9236/2010 3 to the learned counsel for the petitioner, will put the petitioner in real hardship and the stock also may deteriorate in quality. It is pointed out that the petitioner has got so many business transactions and commitments and therefore, unless the goods are released pending further investigation, the petitioner will be put in real difficulty. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P5 within a period of one week. Appropriate orders will be passed after allowing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner also. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp