IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2792 of 2011 M/S RANI SATI FERTILIZERS PVT.LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT INDUSTRIAL AREA, DONAR, DARBHANGA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHARWAN KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA, S/O LATE GOURI SHANKAR JHUNJHUNWALA, RESIDENT OF AT- DONAR CHOWK, P.O.- LALBAGH, P.S. - TOWN & DISTRICT DARBHANGA………………………………..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR (AGRICULTURE), GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE (UPADAN), VIKASH BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE DY. DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE (PLANT), VIKASH BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, DARBHANGA. …………..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : M/s Gautam Kumar Kejriwal and Sushila Agrawal, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha with Mr.Subodh Kumar, AC to GP-14 ----------- 05/ 20.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 02.12.2010 by which Agriculture Production Commissioner dismissed Appeal No.11 of 2010 filed by the petitioner and also challenging order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the Director of Agriculture by which he refused to renew the certificate of registration of the petitioner in respect of manufacture of Mixture of Fertilizers as also for sale of fertilizers and for direction to the authorities to renew the certificate of registration and for other ancillary reliefs. - 2 - 3. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the Director of Agriculture had rejected petitioner’s application for renewal of the certificate of registration by a detailed order dated 01.09.2010 on various grounds. It also transpires that all the findings and grounds taken in that order had been challenged in detail by the petitioner in his Appeal No.11 of 2010 filed before the Agriculture Production Commissioner. From perusal of the order of the appellate authority it shows that he had dismissed the appeal without considering the claim of the petitioner based on specific provisions of law with regard to renewal of the certificate of registration. The appellate authority had passed a very cryptic order without even appreciating the specific findings of the Director of Agriculture and the points raised against them by the petitioner, including the specific decisions of this court in that regard, namely order dated 12.04.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No.5168 of 2010 and order dated 01.10.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No.16645 of 2010. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the said order of the appellate authority is not sustainable in law and is accordingly quashed. The matter is remitted to the Agriculture Production Commissioner to consider the aforesaid Appeal No.11 of 2010 filed by the petitioner afresh and decide the same in accordance with law dealing with all the points raised by the petitioner, including the provisions of law and the - 3 - case laws involved in the case. 5. So far the prayer of petitioner for allowing him to continue with the production and sale activities of the fertilizers in view of specific provisions of section 11(4) and 18 (4) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 during the pendency of the appeal is concerned, the petitioner will be at liberty to file an interlocutory application before the appellate authority in the said appeal and the appellate authority shall decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within one month from the date of filing of that application. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)