CWP No.3970 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3970 of 2009 Date of decision: March 16, 2009. M/s Sidhu Khad Store ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Rakesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 23.9.2008 (Annexure P-6) and dated 15.12.2008 (Annexure P-8), whereby its licence to sell insecticides, granted in the year 1988-89 under the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Insecticides Rules, 1971, has been revoked and the petitioner's appeal has also been dismissed. There is a concurrent finding by the licensing and the Appellate Authorities that sample of the stock of Butachlor 50% EC (brand Chetak) Batch No.SCLJM001 manufactured in April, 2008 and expiry March, 2010 was taken from the petitioner's shop on 26.6.2008. The Insecticides CWP No.3970 of 2009 -: 2 :- Inspector drew a loose sample out of a 5 litre packing by withdrawing 250 x 3, i.e., 750 ml in the presence of two Agriculture Development Officers. The proprietor's son, Amandeep Singh, informed the inspecting party that the insecticide was supplied to the petitioner-firm by M/s Arora Khad Store, Tarn Taran without issuing any bill. The insecticide was manufactured by M/s Sudarshan Consolidated Limited. The sample was sent to Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Bhatinda for analysis and as per its report, the contents of Butachlor 50% EC were found 31.57% only. The sample was accordingly declared misbranded. Based upon the analysis report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which it submitted its reply. On consideration thereof, the Chief Agriculture Officer-cum-Licensing Authority passed a well reasoned order dated 23.9.2008 (Annexure P-6) whereby the petitioner's licence has been revoked. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated15.12.2008 (Annexure P-8), observing as follows:- “After going through the contention mentioned above of the dealer as well as of the department, it is clear that while selling and stocking Butachlor 50% EC as manufactured by M/s Sudarshan Consolidated Limited, the appellant-firm has contravened the provisions of Insecticide Act, 1968 and Rules 1971 so he is not entitled to protection under section 30(3). The dealer firm was not having the authority to sell the insecticides manufactured by M/s Sudarshan Consolidated Ltd. The representative of the dealer firm did not produce stock register, bill book and CWP No.3970 of 2009 -: 3 :- other documents as demanded at the time of sampling. In spite of sale stop, this insecticide was dispersed. Shri Jaswant Singh – owner was given opportunity but even he could not produce any evidence against the allegations leveled by Department. In view of the above facts, the appeal of the appellant-firm is hereby dismissed.” Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at length and perused the impugned orders. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner had no valid authorization to sell or stock the insecticides manufactured by M/s Sudarshan Consolidated Ltd., inasmuch, as the renewed licence granted to the petitioner authorized it to sell and stock the products of the said company upto 31.12.2007 only. In other words, there was no authorization by the said manufacturer in favour of the petitioner as on 26.6.2008 when the sample was taken. Similarly, the petitioner's plea that no sample was taken from its shop or that the Insecticide Inspector had an axe to grind against it, is nothing but a vague and baseless afterthought plea. The sample was taken on 26.6.2008 and the first representation-cum-complaint was lodged by the petitioner on 15.7.2008 only, making vague and wild allegations against the Insecticides Inspector. The proprietor of the petitioner firm went to the extent of denying the written acknowledgement made by his own son before the inspecting team. In such a situation, the severest action taken by the authorities under the Act is a befitting reply to the licensees like the petitioner who, by duping and defrauding the innocent farmers, are thriving CWP No.3970 of 2009 -: 4 :- on the misbranded products. The Appellate Authority appears to be right in observing that the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal shall have no effect on the further action that may be taken against the proprietor of the petitioner- firm under the provisions of the Insecticides Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Faced with this situation, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per the consistent practice prevailing in the State of Punjab, the licence is revoked partially and not in toto. It is not desirable or expedient for this Court to express any view in this regard. Suffice it to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the licensing authority and/or the appellate authority, if so permissible under the law, in that regard. If any such application is moved by the petitioner, the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law and subject to its maintainability. Dismissed. March 16, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge