THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.24252 OF 2008 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner is involved in fertilizer business at Chityal, Nalgonda District under the name and style ‘Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Fertilizers’. His case is that while he was shifting the urea bags in a truck, the Assistant Agricultural Officer of S.Narayanapuram Mandal, seized the truck along with the stock, on the ground that same is being loaded in the truck un-authorizedly and reported to the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Chityal Police, who registered the same in Crime No.179/08 dated 28.9.2008. The main contention of the petitioner is that the urea is an essential commodity as per the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and that Clause 27 of the said Order, contemplates appointment of inspectors, but in the present case neither the agricultural officer who complained against the petitioner nor the Assistant Sub Inspector who registered the crime are appointed under Clause 27 and hence the seizure and the consequent registration of crime are illegal and without jurisdiction and hence the crime is liable to be set aside. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied a judgment of a learned single Judge of this court reported in B.SAMBA MURTHY vs. MANDAL REV. OFFICER[1]. 4. The 3rd respondent - Agriculture Officer filed counter affidavit and stated inter alia that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.584 Food and Agriculture (F.P-I) dated 9.12.1985, published in the A.P. Gazette PT.I(Extra) dated 9.12.1985 and appointed the Agricultural Officers as inspectors under Clause 27 of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. The relevant portion in the said G.O. is extracted as under for ready reference: “NOTIFICATION-III In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 27 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby appoints the following Officers of the Agricultural Department to be inspectors of fertilizers for the purpose of Fertilizer Control Order within the jurisdiction as specified against each of the Officer:- OFFICERS AND AREAS Agricultural Officer – In their respective areas…” 5. In view of the G.O.Ms.No.584 dated 9.12.1995, the ground raised by the petitioner that Agricultural Officer is not appointed under Clause 27 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, is no longer available. 6. In the judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, the facts reveal that the inspection of stock was made by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the verification was made by the Assistant Director of Agriculture and thereafter the seizure of fertilizers was made. The learned single Judge found that as the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Assistant Director of Agriculture were not appointed as Fertizer Inspectors under Clause 19, they have no jurisdiction. But in the present case, the Agricultural Officer was appointed as inspector under Cause 27 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.584 Food and Agriculture (F.P-I) dated 9.12.1985. Hence, the said judgment of the learned single Judge cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ------------------------ 19-02- 2010 [1] 1988(2) APLJ 288