IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 20393 of 2008 Between: Sri Lokesh Enterprises D.No.19-7-4, Bandlamitta, Ongole, Prakasam District Rep. by its Proprietor, Dacherla Srinivasa Rao S/o. Rosaiah R/o. Kamepalli Village, Jarugumalli Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary Department of Agriculture, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Director of Agriculture, (Regular), Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Agricultural Officer (Fertilizers Inspector), Ongole, Prakasam District. 4 The Addl. Director of Agriculture-II, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, declaring the impugned action of the respondents herein in issuing the proceedings dt. 10.09.208 and the consequential proceedings in R.C.No.A/98/08-09 dated 12.09.2008 by the respondent No.2 herein under which they had suspended Certiﬁcates of Registration of the petitioner and also simultaneously ordered stop of the sale of stock as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, ultra-vires powers of the respondents, and is beyond the scope of the Control order and consequently set-aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. SITA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.20393 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner who is a registered dealer in Fertilizers holding a Certiﬁcate of Registration granted under the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (for short, ‘the Control Order’), is carrying on its business at Kamepalli Village, Jarugumalli Mandal, Prakasam District. This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent – Assistant Director of Agriculture – dated 12.9.2008, suspending the petitioner’s licence pending enquiry alleging contravention of the provisions of the Control Order as arbitrary and illegal. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that since the Control Order does not provide for suspension of the Certiﬁcate of Registration, the impugned order is without authority. Even otherwise, since no prior notice was issued nor any order was made under Clause-28 (1) (a) or 35 (1) (b) of the Control Order, the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that since the impugned order was passed mechanically without application of mind to the fact that none of the contraventions alleged warrant cancellation of the Certiﬁcate of Registration, the impugned order of suspension is unjustified and impermissible. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Clause 31 (1) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, provides for suspension or cancellation of Certiﬁcate of Registration on the ground of contravention of any of the provisions of the Control Order or any of the terms and conditions of Certiﬁcate of Registration. However, an opportunity of being heard to the holder of Certiﬁcate before passing such order is mandatory. Further, while canceling the Certiﬁcate, the holder of the Certiﬁcate has to be allowed a period of thirty days to dispose of balance stock of fertilizers held by him. However, such prior notice or opportunity of being heard is not necessary for the purpose of suspension of the Certiﬁcate of Registration as an interim measure under sub- clause (2) of Clause- 31. A reading of Clause 31 (2) makes it clear that the Certiﬁcate of Registration can be suspended as an interim measure where the alleged contravention by the holder of Certificate, if proved, justifies cancellation of the Certificate. In the case on hand, the impugned order shows that the petitioner was alleged to have contravened Clauses-5, 8, 28 (1) (b) & 35 (1) (b) of the Control Order. The said contravention, if proved, undoubtedly is a ground for suspension or cancellation of Certiﬁcate of Registration under Clause-31 (1). Hence, the impugned order of suspension as an interim measure cannot be held to be beyond the scope of the Control Order or without the authority. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the contravention of Clause-28 (1) (b) alleged in the impugned order was absolutely false and without any basis since no samples were drawn following the prescribed procedure at any point of time. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion as to the correctness of the said allegation since it is a matter for enquiry by the competent authority. At any rate, even if Clause- 28 (1) (b) is not taken into consideration, the contravention of other provisions alleged in the impugned order, if established, is suﬃcient for suspension or cancellation of the Certiﬁcate of Registration under Clause-31(1) of the Control Order. Hence, the interference by this Court at this stage is unwarranted on any of the grounds raised by the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon the proviso of Clause 31 (1) of the Control Order submitted that the petitioner may be allowed the period of 30 days to dispose of the balance stock of fertilizers held by him. Such a relief cannot be granted since the proviso comes into operation only at the stage of cancellation of the Certiﬁcate of Registration. Since the impugned order is only an order of suspension pending enquiry as an interim measure, the petitioner cannot be permitted to dispose of the balance stock. The learned Government Pleader, under instructions from the respondents, stated that the requirement of furnishing the details of the alleged contravention under the proviso to Clause-31 (2) would be strictly complied with in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the respondents to take further steps in accordance with law without being inﬂuenced by any of the observations made in this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 19.09.2008 gbs