IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1875 of 2011 Date of Decision : February 01, 2011. M/s National Pesticides .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Arun Chandra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms.Monica Chhibbar Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Let three copies of the writ petition be handed over to the learned State counsel during the course of day. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner is a licensee in the business of Insecticides and possesses a licence issued by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur, which was valid upto 31.12.2010 for the purposes of selling, stocking and exhibiting for sale various types of Insecticides under the Insecticides Act, C.W.P.No .1875 of 2011 2 1968 (hereafter referred to as `the Act'). The samples of various brands of Insecticides which were being carried in a vehicle by the employees of the petitioner-firm were taken on 25.6.2010 and as per the report of the State Laboratory, Bathinda, these samples failed. The petitioner's licence was accordingly cancelled vide order dated 20th September, 2010 (Annexure P21). The aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal under the Act which, it appears, was heard by the Appellate Authority-cum-Joint Director, Agricultural (Plant Protection), Directorate of Agriculture, Punjab, on 29.11.2010. It further appears that during the course of hearing, the Appellate Authority desired that the original purchase bills should be produced. A letter dated 2nd December, 2010 (Annexure P-28) was sent to the petitioner by the Appellate Authority directing it to submit those documents by 6.12.2010. The petitioner-firm is said to have produced/sent these documents, however, to its utter surprise, the Appellate Authority dismissed its appeal on 29.11.2010 itself (Annexure P-23) without even awaiting the petitioner to produce the documents which were sought for vide order dated 2nd December, 2010. It is apparent from the material on record that the Appellate Authority has decided the appeal hurriedly denying a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part; the impugned order dated 29.11.2010 (Annexure P-23) passed by the Appellate Authority is set-aside with a direction to it to decide the appeal afresh after taking into consideration the documents submitted/to be C.W.P.No .1875 of 2011 3 submitted by the petitioner in response to the memo dated 2nd December, 2010. The appeal shall be decided within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. February 01, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE