CWP No. 18080 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18080 of 2008 Date of Decision: 11.11.2008 M/s K.K. & Company ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Shri Arun Chandra, Advocate, for the petitioner. 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the seizure memo dated 25.7.2008 and also for directing respondent No.2 to permit the sale and to open the godown of the petitioner-Company. It is the case of the petitioner that on 25.7.2008, the insecticides seven in numbers, were seized by Insecticides Inspector. Consequent to said seizure memo, the petitioner has been issued show cause notice for distribution and sale of the insecticides in violation of the provisions of Section 13 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short `the Act'). The grievance of the petitioner is that the insecticides, which have been seized, are part of the licence issued to the petitioner to store and sell the same and, therefore, the show cause notice could not have been issued to the petitioner. It is pointed out that though the petitioner CWP No. 18080 of 2008 (2) has filed reply (Annexure P.3) to the said show cause notice, yet till date no orders have been passed by respondent No.2. We are of the opinion that the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court is misconceived. As and when any order is passed by the Competent Authority under the Act, the petitioner will have the remedy to challenge the same in terms of the provisions of the Act itself. However, as on today, we are of the opinion that the present writ petition is premature in the absence of any order in pursuance of the show cause notice issued. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, with the direction to respondent No.2 to pass an appropriate order, as expeditiously as possible. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 11-11-2009 ds