IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 5168 of 2010 1. M/S SHAKTI MICRO CHEMICALS, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT D.D.ROAD, FORBESGANJ, DISTT-ARARIA THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED MANAGER ABHISHEK KUMAR ROY , S/O SHRI MADHUSUDAN ROY, R/O VILL BHAGKOHLIA, P.O., P.S., TOWN-FORBESIGANJ, DISTT-ARARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKAS 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 ARARIA *** For the petitioner : M/s S D Sanjay & Gopal Prasad Gupta, Advocates For the S t a t e : Mr Mani Kant Mishra, GP 21 *** 3 12.04.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioner is a manufacturer of mixture of fertilisers. For the said purpose, he has certificates of registration duly granted under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. One certificate is for manufacturing mixture of fertiliser and the other as a wholesale of fertiliser so manufactured. The certificate granted to him had validity upto 19.04.2004. By the impugned order, which has been passed by the Director of Agriculture who is the registering authority dated 23.02.2010, petitioner has now been informed that renewal cannot be granted and petitioner had been working without proper renewal of the certificates of registration. 2 This is the order under challenge. The first thing Court would notice is that it has taken six years for the Director of Agriculture to pick up a renewal application. That was filed in the year 2004. Why the delay and for what purpose, the Court would not speculate? Be that as it may, in the order, it is mentioned that the renewal application was belated, it was filed without adequate fee, certain documents that were asked for on 09.08.2004 were never furnished. Mr S D Sanjay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order is perverse on the face of it. He submits that the renewal application was filed well within time but then he was informed that the statutory form had changed and, as such, he must file the renewal application again. That renewal application was filed which, ignoring the other facts, the Director of Agriculture says that the application was belated. Then with regard to short payment of fee is concerned, petitioner has annexed challans showing due payment of additional fee. The difference was because fee had also been enhanced and, therefore, the difference was paid subsequently on being noticed. He then submits, with reference to communication of the District Agriculture Officer, Purnea, that some report was called for from him and in the year, 2005 itself, he had recommended to the Directorate for renewal of the certificate of registration. He then points out that the period for this renewed certificate of registration also expired in 2007 whereafter again the petitioner filed renewal application. At no 3 point of time, he is told about any deficiency which has to be made up. Thus, he points out that the order has been passed ignoring relevant materials and, as such, the order is perverse. Having considered the matter, in my view, the first thing this Court would like to remind the Director of Agriculture who is the registering authority, is the basic difference between various licensing orders issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and the Fertiliser Control Order. Under Fertiliser Control Order, it is a certificate of registration that is required to be taken unlike a licence under other orders. There is no discretion in this matter to the registering authority. On fulfilment of conditions, the registration certificate has to be mandatorily granted which may not be the case where licences are involved. The conditions to be fulfilled are also stipulated in the Fertiliser Control Order itself. It is because of this reason, instead of conventional licensing provision, what is provided is that mere registration which is as a matter of right and not dependent on any discretion of the Director of Agriculture. Further, in terms of Clauses-8 and 11 of the Fertiliser Control Order, the moment a renewal application is filed till the time it is not refused and the refusal communicated, it would be deemed that the certificate of registration is duly renewed. Viewed in this light, firstly this Court would like to observe that the observation of the Director of Agriculture that the petitioner has been carrying on business all these years without a renewed certificate of registration is totally 4 invalid and unwarranted observation. So far as the other facts noted by the Director are concerned, prima facie, they equally seem to be unwarranted and contrary to records. Petitioner’s renewal application was duly filed on 16.03.2004 and is duly receipted. This is confirmed by the communication of the Deputy Director of Agriculture dated 27.04.2004 wherein petitioner has been asked to furnish renewal application in new amended form presupposes that earlier it had been made under old form. This contradicts the finding of the Director directly. Petitioner has brought on record various certificates and affidavits which were already filed to show that each of the findings are unwarranted. In my view, even if one accepts what the Director has said to be correct, they are only technical defects for which renewal of certificate of registration is not in the context above should not have been refused. These were formalities which should have been made up and/or cured. They were not incurable mandatory formalities. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of Director of Agriculture refusing to renew the certificates of registration of the petitioner for the year, 2004-2007 is set aside and the Director of Agriculture is directed to reconsider the matter in light of the directions and observations made above and pass appropriate orders after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in that regard. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ 5 petition stands disposed of. It is expected that necessary final orders in accordance with this judgment would be passed by the Director of Agriculture within a reasonable time but not later than eights weeks from today. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)