HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition Nos.17337, 17350, 18942 and 19654 of 2010; 21550, 21621, 21826, 21937, 21954, 21965, 22291, 22377, 23332, 23365, 23377, 23619, 26911 and 21526 of 2011 Date: 01-11-2011 W.P.No.17337 of 2010: Between M/s. Arunai Agro Tech, Works at 44/3-G Se.Agaram Pallipattu Post, Chengam Tk Tiruvannamalai, Rep. by its Proprietor Chandru Chandrasekharan … Petitioner and The Commissisoner & Director of Agriculture, Opp. L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad … Respondent W.P.No.17350 of 2010: Between M/s. Sensational Bio Life Science, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. Talluri Satish Kumar, Hyderabad … Petitioner and The Commissisoner & Director of Agriculture, Opp. L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh … Respondent W.P.No.18942 of 2010: Between M/s. Raksha Crop Care, Rep. by its Proprietor T.Koteswara Rao, Hyderabad … Petitioner and The Commissisoner & Director of Agriculture, Opp. L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, A.P. … Respondent W.P.No.19654 of 2010: Between M/s. Surya Bio Organics, Rep. by its Proprietor K.Rajasri, Regd. Office and Factory at Nagulagudem, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari district … Petitioner and The Commissisoner & Director of Agriculture, Opp. L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, A.P. … Respondent W.P.No.21550 of 2011: Between M/s. Elegans Bio Science, Rep. by its Sales Manager B.Raju, Hyderabad … Petitioner and The Commissisoner & Director of Agriculture, Opp. L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh … Respondent W.P.No.21621 of 2011: Between M/s. Eco Genix Agri Sciences, 3-1 Pishini Pydibhimavaram Srikakulam Dist., Rep. by its Proprietor A.Madhusudhan Rao, Vizianagaram … Petitioner and The Commissisoner & Director of Agriculture, Opp. L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad … Respondent W.P.No.21826 of 2011: Between M/s. Viswa Mithra Bio Agro (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director A.Nageswara Rao, Guntur … Petitioner and The Commissisoner & Director of Agriculture, Opp. L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, A.P. … Respondent W.P.No.21937 of 2011: Between M/s. Pragathi Crop Sciences, Rep. by its Managing Partner Nalabolu Venkata Reddy, Hyderabad … Petitioner and The Commissisoner & Director of Agriculture, Opp. L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh … Respondent W.P.No.21954 of 2011: Between M/s. Atlantis Crop Care Private Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Ch.Suresh Babu, Hyderabad … Petitioner and The Commissisoner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad and another … Respondents W.P.No.21965 of 2011: Between M/s. Shri Bhava Life Sciences, Rep. by its Managing Director, Chalapathi Bhuvaneshwra Raju, Hyderabad … Petitioner and The Commissisoner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad and another … Respondents W.P.No.22291 of 2011: Between Dharani Agri Teck, Kakinada, East Godavari district, Rep. by its Proprietor A.M.Srinivas Gupta … Petitioner and The Commissisoner andDirector of Agriculture, Opp. L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad … Respondent W.P.No.22377 of 2011: Between Orcim Life Sciences Co., Kappalur, Madurai, Rep. by its Managing Partner C.S.Ravi Sankar … Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Agriculture Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another … Respondents W.P.No.23332 of 2011: Between M/s. Vikas Agro Products, Rep. by its Proprietor Kanagal Kranthi Kiran, Chebrolu, Guntur district … Petitioner and The Commissisoner & Director of Agriculture, Opp. L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh … Respondent W.P.No.23365 of 2011: Between M/s. Bianica Bio Sciences, Rep. by its Proprietor Kangala Satyanarayana, Chebrolu, Guntur … Petitioner and The Commissisoner & Director of Agriculture, Opp. L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh … Respondent W.P.No.23377 of 2011: Between Sindhuri Agro Tech, Rep. by its Managing Partner Bejawada Subba Rao, Chebrolu, Guntur district … Petitioner and The Commissisoner & Director of Agriculture, Opp. L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh … Respondent W.P.No.23619 of 2011: Between M/s. Symbiosis Agro Management Private Ltd., Branch Office at Brodipet, Guntur, Rep. by Authorised Signatory C.V.Seshu Babu … Petitioner and The Commissisoner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad … Respondent W.P.No.26911 of 2011: Between Jhas Agri Sciences, Rep. by its Proprietor Kota Prasad, Hyderabad … Petitioner and The Commissisoner & Director of Agriculture, Opp. L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh … Respondent W.P.No.21526 of 2011: Between M/s. Spectrum Agro Remedies, Rep. by its Manager, K.Keshava Rao, Hyderabad … Petitioner and The Commissisoner & Director of Agriculture, Opp. L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition Nos.17337, 17350, 18942 and 19654 of 2010; 21550, 21621, 21826, 21937, 21954, 21965, 22291, 22377, 23332, 23365, 23377, 23619, 26911 and 21526 of 2011 Common Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for respondent, and with their consent these writ petitions are disposed of at this stage. 2. The petitioners have ﬁled these writ petitions seeking to declare the action of the respondents/challenging the action of the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, A.P., Hyderabad, in interfering with their business of manufacturing and sale of bio-products by issuing Memo No.PP.II(1)2085/2005, dated 21-01-2006 and Letter No.PP.II(1)2085/2005, dated 21-01- 2005, as illegal. 3. The petitioners are manufacturers/marketers of bio-products with various brand names. They claim that the said bio-products are manufactured without using any toxic chemicals and are useful to enrich the soil and ensure protection of land/crops from viral, bacterial, fungus and other infections, resulting in more production. According to the petitioners, the products manufactured by them are not covered either under the Insecticides Act, 1968 or Fertilizer Control (Order) Act, 1985. Therefore, there is no obligation on them to obtain licences under the said Acts for manufacturing/ marketing the bio-products. Hence, it is their case that the respondent has no jurisdiction to interfere with their business activities in dealing with the bio-products under the guise of the impugned Memo and the letter. 4. All the learned counsel agree that the relief sought for in this batch of cases is substantially covered by orders of this Court in W.P.No.17811 of 2011 and batch, dated 28- 6-2011. However, having regard to the fact that each manufacturer/marketer is producing more than one product, which require separate analysis, the respondent seeks a clariﬁcation that the amount be paid for each of the products manufactured/sold by the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that whenever the petitioners oﬀer their products, the respondents are postponing to receive the same on some pretext or the other and the same is causing prejudice to the petitioners by delaying their business. 6. The said contentions, in my view, appear to be reasonable. 7. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the following comprehensive directions, with the consent of all the learned counsel, at the stage of admission. (a) The petitioners shall submit a sample of 5 kgs., of each product dealt with by them together with the corresponding literature throwing light upon the manufacturing process as well as the contents thereof together with the composition/components of the products to the respondent herein. The respondents shall not refuse to receive the samples whenever submitted by the petitioners. (b) The petitioners shall also permit the oﬃcers authorized by the respondent to collect samples from the manufacturing units/sale points. The petitioners shall furnish details of their sale points to the respondent for drawal of samples. (c) The petitioners shall remit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees ﬁve thousand only) in respect of each sample along with the samples to the respondent to meet the expenses of analysis. (d) Within 8 (eight) weeks from the date of compliance of conditions as indicated in Clauses (a), (b) and (c), the respondent shall get the same analyzed in a suitable laboratory and intimate the result of the analysis to the petitioners. (e) In case, the analysis reveals that the products dealt with by the petitioners answer the description of the products mentioned in Schedule-III to the Control Order and the Insecticides Act, it shall be entitled to deal with the products only after obtaining Registration/licence under the Control Orders. On the other hand, if the result is found otherwise, the petitioners shall not be subjected to the regime under the Control Orders; and (f) If the respondent fails to intimate the result of the analysis within 8 (eight) weeks from the date of submission of the samples as indicated above, it shall be open to the petitioners to deal with the products, notwithstanding the impugned letter and the memo, as long as the products are not insecticides or chemicals. It is also made clear that in the event the respondent receives any complaints from the ryots with regard to the quality of the bio-products supplied by the petitioners, it shall be open to the respondent to take necessary action in accordance with law. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 01st November, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition Nos.17337, 17350, 18942 and 19654 of 2010; 21550, 21621, 21826, 21937, 21954, 21965, 22291, 22377, 23332, 23365, 23377, 23619, 26911 and 21526 of 2011 (Common Order) 01st November, 2011. (Ak)