Civil Writ Petition No.19616 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19616 of 2008 Date of decision:16.09.2009. M/s Dikh Kheti Sewa Centre ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. Arun Chandra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. ***** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). Additional affidavit of Dharminderjit Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Rampura, filed in Court, is taken on record. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash order dated 24.03.2008 (P-3) vide which insecticide license of the petitioner was cancelled. Further prayer is to quash order dated 15.09.2008 (P-5) dismissing appeal filed by the petitioner. It is apparent from the records that on 10.07.2007, a sample of Traicontanel 0.05% was drawn from premises of the petitioner and, on analysis, it was found misbranded. By taking note of the same, license of the petitioner was cancelled. Petitioner went in appeal, wherein, he took a specific plea that the sample was drawn from an original sealed packing, as such, the petitioner was not at fault and no penal action can be initiated against it. By stating as above, benefit under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 was claimed by the petitioner. Civil Writ Petition No.19616 of 2008 -2- Perusal of order Annexure P-5 dated 15.09.2008 indicates that when appeal was dismissed, no finding was given as to whether the sample was drawn from the original sealed packing or it was a loose sample. It was also not stated as to how and under what circumstances petitioner was not entitled to get benefit of Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Appellate order was passed in a cursory manner, without adverting to the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner. On being confronted with facts mentioned above, Shri Sharma failed to say anything in favour of the order passed in appeal. In view of above, this writ petition is partly allowed and order dated 15.09.2008 (P-5) passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside. Matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to decide it afresh, with a direction to give a specific finding, by making reference to the documents on record, as to whether the sample was drawn from the original sealed packing or it was a loose sample. It be also specifically observed as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 or not? Petitioner is directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 12.10.2009. He is also directed to supply a copy of the order passed today to the Appellate Authority. September 16, 2009 (JASBIR SINGH) vinod* JUDGE