IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11256 of 2009 Between: Kapro Bio Agri Inputs, rep.by its Sole Proprietor Smt.Karumanchi Radha,W/o.Srinu Babu R/o.D.No.2-40,Kakumanu village Kakumanu Mandal , Guntur District ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner &Director of Agriculture, Opp: L.B.Stadium Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, AP .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.KRUSHI BABU Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in interfering with the manufacturing, marketing and sale of Bio- products like AminoAcid and Sea -weed extract by issuing Memo No.PP.II(1)2085/2005 dated 21.1.2006 and the consequential letter No.PP.II)1_ 2085/2005 dated 21.1.2006 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondent not to interfere, in any manner, with the manufacture, sale and distribution of Bio-products including from the licensed premises of the dealers/stockists under the Insecticides Act,1968 and the Fertilizers control (Order) Act, 1985.” At the hearing, it is agreed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture that Writ Petition No.17508 of 2007, filed for similar relief, was disposed of by this Court by Order dated 20-08-2007. In the said order, this Court gave the following directions: “(a) It shall be open to the petitioners to submit a sample of 5 kgs of each produce dealt with by them, together with the corresponding literature, throwing light upon the manufacturing process as well as the contents thereof. (b) Within two (2) weeks from the date of submission of the samples and the literature by the petitioners, the respondent shall get the same analysed in the suitable laboratory and intimate the result of the analysis, to the petitioners. (c) 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, the petitioners shall be entitled to deal with the products only after obtaining license under the control order. On the other hand, if the result is found otherwise, the petitioners shall not be subjected to the regime under the Control Order or the Act; and (d) If the respondent fails to intimate the result of the analysis within four weeks from the date of submission of the samples and the literature, it shall be open to the petitioner to deal with the products, notwithstanding the impugned letter and the memo, as long as the products are not insecticides or chemicals.” As this Writ Petition is identical to the abovementioned Writ Petition, the same is disposed of in terms of the above reproduced order with a direction that the directions contained therein shall form part of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.14468 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th June, 2009 lur