IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 976 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 22, 2008 M/s Lachhman Dass & Sons …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Arun Chandra, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for quashing order dated 13.3.2007 (P-4), passed by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda- respondent No. 3, cancelling Licence No. 12/93-94 to stock and sale of pesticide/insecticide, of the petitioner in exercising of power under Section 14(1) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), on the ground of violation of Sections 3k(1), 17, 18 and 33 of the Act. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 22.10.2007 (P-6), passed by the Appellate Authority-respondent No. 2, whereby while C.W.P. No. 976 of 2008 partly allowing the appeal, licence of the petitioner has been restored, however, it has been debarred from selling all the pesticides manufactured by M/s Insecticide (India) Ltd. Still further a prayer has been made for directing the respondents to give benefit of Sub- section (3) of Section 30 of the Act to the petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm and engaged in the business of sale of insecticides. It has been granted a licence for the purpose of selling, stocking, exhibiting various types of insecticides under the Act. On 10.10.2006, a sample of Malathion 5% DP was drawn by the Insecticide Inspector from the business premises of the petitioner. The aforementioned insecticide was acquired by the petitioner from its manufacturer, namely, M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd. The material was contained in sealed containers. The sample was sent to Senor Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana, for analysis, where it was declared misbranded, inasmuch as, the active ingredients were found to be 3.56% instead of 5% DP. The Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda-respondent No. 3, exercising powers under Section 14(1) of the Act, cancelled the licence of the petitioner, vide order dated 13.3.2007 (P-4). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 15 of the Act. The Appellate Authority- respondent No. 2, has partly allowed the appeal vide order dated 22.10.2007 (P-6), however, debarred the petitioner from selling all the pesticides manufactured by M/s Insecticide (India) Ltd. The 2 C.W.P. No. 976 of 2008 Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda-respondent No. 3 has been directed to take further action as per the provisions of the Act. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record we find that there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. A perusal of the order dated 22.10.2007, shows that a well reasoned order has been passed by the Appellate Authority-respondent No. 2 after hearing both the parties. The findings recorded by the Appellate Authority reads as under:- “ After going through the defence produced by the dealer as well the department, I have come to the conclusion that the dealer is not entitled to the provisions of 30(3) of the Insecticide Act, 1968. There is no doubt that the dealer firm by selling and stocking the misbranded pesticide has violated the provisions of Insecticide Act, 1968 and rules therein and the dealer cannot escape from his liability from selling the misbranded pesticide. The misbranded pesticide malathine 5% DP was manufactured by Insecticide India Ltd. so I restore the licence of the appellant firm but he is debarred from selling all the pesticides manufactured by Insecticide India Ltd. This decision will not have any affect for the further action being taken against the appellant firm. The Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda is being 3 C.W.P. No. 976 of 2008 directed to take further action as per the provisions of Insecticide Act, 1968.” The licence of the petitioner has already been restored by the Appellate Authority and it has been debarred from selling all the pesticides manufactured by M/s Insecticide (India) Ltd. because one of the pesticide Malathion 5% DP, being manufactured by M/s Insecticide (India) Ltd., has been found to be misbranded. The Appellate Authority has further directed the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda, to take further action as per the provisions of Insecticide Act, 1968 and no adverse order has so far been passed, which could prejudice the rights of the petitioner. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner in the instant petition to give benefit of Sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act is pre-mature at this stage. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kissan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur, 1990 SCC (Cri) 623 (P-7) and Division Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of M/s Taneja Fertilizers v. State of Haryana (C.W.P. No. 14711 of 1993, decided on 28.3.1994, Annexure P-8); M/s Zimidara Sewa Kender v. State of Haryana (C.W.P. No. 13179 of 1993, decided on 25.4.1994, Annexure P-9); and M/s Bhucho Pesticides v. The Director Agriculture (C.W.P. No. 8217 of 1994, decided on 23.9.1994, Annexure P-10); as well as Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dharma Pal and others v. State of Punjab and others (C.W.P. No. 7922 of 1988, decided on 28.8.2001, Annexure 4 C.W.P. No. 976 of 2008 P-11), are of no help of the petitioner because in those cases the licence of the dealer was cancelled and not restored, whereas in the present case it has come on record that the Appellate Authority has already restored the licence of the petitioner, vide appellate order dated 22.10.2007 (P-6). Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 22, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 5