IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.22741 of 2009 Between: Heranba Crop Sciences rep., by its Proprietor, Mr.Kundurthi Seetha Ramaiah, ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Opp: L.B. Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. ..... RESPONDENT ORDER: The matter is coming up for admission. Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture takes notice on behalf of respondent. 2. The writ petition is filed praying for the relief of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in interfering with the manufacturing and sale of the petitioner’s bio-products like OXYZEN, MARK, BIZZ, RUSH, CHAMPION, MUSCLE, NETWON, FLOWERS, FACT, REPELL AND SWIFT which contains Amino Acid and Sea-Weed Extract by issuing Memo No.PP.II(1)2085/2005, dated 21-01-2006 and the consequential letter No.PP.II(1)2085/2005, dated 21-01-2006 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondent not to interfere within any manner with the Bio- products of the petitioner including from the licensed premises of its dealers/stockiest under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act 1985 and pass such other suitable orders. 3. It is stated that similar writ petition No.7728 of 2009 had been disposed of with certain directions and this writ petition may be disposed of in the light of the said directions made by this court in writ petition No.7728 of 2009. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner is producer and marketer of bio-products. It is also stated that the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 are not applicable to bio-products being produced and marketed by the petitioner. Hence, the respondent had no control over the same. However, the respondent had issued proceedings Memo No.PP.II(1)2085/ 2005, dated 21-01-2006 inter-alia stating that since the bio-products are not covered by the Insecticides Act, 1968 or the Fertilizer Control (Order) Act, 1985 the stocking, storing or the sale of the said products from the licensed premises will not be permitted and the units which already having marketing permission were instructed to liquidate the existing stocks within 45 days i.e., on or before 10-03-2006. 4. Further it is stated that questioning the said proceedings a similar writ petition No.7728 of 2009 had been filed and the same was disposed of with certain directions, which was placed by the petitioner before this court. It is also stated that the officials of the respondent are interfering with the business of the petitioner. In the light of the same, the present writ petition had been filed. 5. The writ petition No.7728 of 2009 had been disposed of as hereunder: “When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel on either side fairly conceded that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by an order dated 25-04-2006, rendered by this Court in W.P.No.8207 OF 2006 and batch, which were disposed of with the following directions: “In view of the fact that no license is required under the Insecticide Act, 1968 for manufacture and sale of bio-products as long as they do not contain any ingredients of insecticide as mentioned in the schedule, i.e., Antagonistic Fungi and Bacteria, respondents cannot interfere with the store, sale and distribution of bio-products belonging to the petitioners. It is needless to say if the bio-products contain any chemical or insecticides which endangers the environment, it is always open for the concerned authorities to take appropriate action against the petitioners- manufacturers and the dealers of the said bio-products, and by the Executive Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 133 of Cr.P.C.” The fact that the petitioner herein is also similarly situated is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. No order as to costs.” 6. In the light of the same, this writ petition also is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J October 23, 2009. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.22741 of 2009 October 23, 2009