IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 12143 of 1999 BETWEEN: 1 M/s. Sagar Hydrib Seeds company, rep. by it's Proprietor S.M. Kaul, 3-5-855/7,Hyderguda, Hyd-29. 2 M/s. Janki Agencies, rep.by it's Proprietor Bharath Bhushan 3-5-855/1/C/1,Hyderguda, Hyd-29. 3 M/s. Jeevan Seeds , rep.by it's Proprietor L.R. Plaza, Hyderguda, Hyd-29. 4 M/s. Pyar Seed Farms, rep.by it's Proprietor Vijay Mohan Lal. S-6,3-6-6-295,Pioneer Chambers,,Hyderguda, Hyd-29. 5 M/s. Shailmar Hybrid Seeds company, rep.by it's Proprietor Syed Naeem, 3-6-295/A Pioneer Chambers, Hyderguda, Hyd-29. 6 M/s. Vasavi Seeds, rep.by it's Proprietor Satyanarayana,3-6- 285, Shop No cellar-1, 3-6-295/A Pioneer Chambers, Hyderguda, Hyd-29. 7 M/s. Sri Sai Ram Enterprises, rep.by it's Proprietor Mahender, 3-6-295/A, 3-6-295/A,1st Floor, Pioneer Chambers, Hyderguda, Hyd-29. 8 M/s. Janata Seeds Store, rep.by it's Proprietor Syed Sardar Ahmed, 3-6-295/2,C4-a Pioneer Chambers,Hyderguda, Hyd-29. 9 M/s. Jeevan Seeds Pvt. Ltd., rep.by it's Proprietor Managing Director Jagadish V. Valand, 1st Floor Opp: Cage Bahar, Hyderguda, Hyd-29. 10 M/s. Padma Seeds, rep.by it's Proprietor,Mari Reddy, 3-6-305/A/3, Hyderguda, Hyderabad-29. 11 M/s. Suguna Seeds, rep.by it's Proprietor,Chandrasekhar Reddy, 3-6-307/A/3, Hyderguda, Hyderabad-29. 12 M/s. Mega Seeds&Fertilizer, rep.by it's Proprietor,Syed Habib, 3-6-307/A/3/4,Opp. Cafe Bahar, Hyderguda, Hyderabad-29. 13 M/s. Prasad Enterprises, rep.by it's Proprietor Nitin Mathur, 3-6-307/A/3/4, Near Cafe Bahar, Hyderguda, Hyderabad-29. 14 M/s. Prakash Agencies, rep.by it's Proprietor K. Prakash, 3-5-825,Shop no.2,Mapher Arcade, Hyderguda, Hyderabad-29. 15 M/s. Sai Agencies, rep.by it's ProprietorAshok Kumar. G 3-5-825,Mapher Arcade, Hyderguda, Hyderabad-29. 16 M/s.Sri Venkateswara Agro Agencies, rep.by it's Proprietor Anil Reddy, 3-6-329, Hyderguda, Hyderabad-29. 17 M/s. Famous Seeds Co.3-6-345/A, rep.by it's Proprietor Bikam Chand Tapadia, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad-29. 18 M/s. New Insia Seeds Co., rep.by it's Propritor Ravinder, M-4,1st Floor,Pioneer Chambers, Hyderguda, Hyderabad-29. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Secretary to Govt. Department of Agricultural and Cooperation Govt. of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 Govt. of India ,Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agri & cooperation, Rep.by it's secretary, F/212,Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order, or direction declaring the action of the respondents, more specifically the 1st respondent in issuing the circular Memo No. S&HVP(1)_3037/98 dt17.9.98 and further actions of imposing trade restrictions on marketing truthfully label seed as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14,19,21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and also as beyond the scope of the Seed Act,1966 and Seed Rules 1968 and the seed control Order 1983 and consequently set aside the same and pass such order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.RAMESH KUMAR NAYANI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners question the circular issued by the first respondent – the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture – dated 17.09.1998 directing his subordinate officers not to issue fresh seed licence or renew the seed licence without mentioning the source of seed in the Seed Licence and all the Seed Inspectors should be instructed to verify the source of seed for the seeds the dealers conduct the sales. 2. The petitioners are the existing licencees and their licences might have already been renewed by following the aforesaid circular as there was no stay granted by this Court. 3. However, when the matter has been listed on 07.08.2008, as none appeared, it was directed to be listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’ and taken up for hearing, neither the petitioners appear nor there is any representation on their behalf. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for default of the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 14, 2008 DSK