IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.23546 of 2003 Between: M/s. Hindustan Pulversing Mills, Rep. by its Zonal Manager- Mr. M.K. Chauhan, S/o. Late T.P. Singh Chauhan Having its Registered Office at New Delhi, and its Zonal Office at 3-6- 291/2A, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector (C.S.), Civil Supplies, R.R. District. 2 The Agricultural Officer, Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the court of Principal Sessions Judge, R.R. District made in Crl. Appeal No.100 of 2001 dated 16-6-2003 confirming the order of the 1st respondent made in Case No.A7/189/2001, dated 7-7-2001 and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KMR} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.23546 of 2003 ORDER: The Petitioner Company is a pool-handling agency having licence under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, and its Zonal Office is situated at Himayatnagar, Hyderabad and the petitioner is also owning a mixture plant at Rajasthan. It is stated that the petitioner is having licence to import zinc sulphate 33% Monohydrate and to pack them into 250 grams pouches to market them in India. The petitioner is also having valid licence to manufacture different mixtures of fertilizers and also to manufacture different types of pesticides. The petitioner is having godown at Autonagar, Vanastalipuram, Hyderabad. While so, on 17.10.2000 the Godown of the petitioner was inspected by the Fertilizer Inspector/Agricultural Officer and verified the stocks and drawn samples of zinc sulphate 33% of Monohydrate of batch No.61 and sent the sample to the Regional Fertilizer Control laboratory at Kalyani, Nadia, West Bengal and as per the analysis report dated 08.01.2001, the sample is not in accordance with the specification and it is a ‘non-standard’. On receipt of the said analysis report, the stocks worth of Rs.2,73,870/- were seized and kept at Agricultural Godown Office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Himayatnagar for the safe custody and thereafter the action under Sec.6-A of Essential Commodities Act has been initiated for confiscation of the seized stocks. It is stated that the Joint Collector by order dated 07.07.2001 ordered confiscation of 75% Bank guarantee amount furnished by the petitioner by order dated 07.07.2001 in Case No.A7/189/2001. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.100/2001 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the same was dismissed by order dated 16.06.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed contending that the sample of the same batch which was taken on 15.01.2001 was sent to the Department of Agriculture Laboratory, Rajendranagar and the Analyst vide its report dated 07.02.2001 opined that the sample is according to specifications. It is further stated that another sample taken on 03.07.2001 was also found that it is as per specifications according to per the analyst report of the FCO Laboratory, Warangal dated 24.07.2001. It is stated that when the same batch of the zinc sulphate was sent to other two laboratories the report was in accordance with the specifications, but whereas based on the report of Regional Fertilizer Control Laboratory, Kalyani, Nadia, West Bengal, dated 08.01.2001 the consequential proceedings have been initiated. It is further stated that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to send the second sample to the independent laboratory though a representation has been filed before the Joint Director of Agriculture on 25.01.2001 which is said to have been received by the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Himayatnagar. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that the confiscation of 75% of the bank guarantee furnished as ordered by the Joint Collector and confirmed by the learned District Judge is illegal and arbitrary. I have perused the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy, dated 07.07.2001, which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.100/2001 dated 16.06.2003. Though the petitioner is said to have been filed a representation dated 25.01.2001 to arrange for re-analysis of sample by any other independent laboratory, I am of the opinion that the 1st respondent could not have taken diligent steps by taking legal recourse to consider the request of the petitioner for sending the sample given to it for re-analysis by independent private laboratory before passing confiscation orders dated 07.07.2001. The petitioner has not taken any steps for getting the sample tested by the analyst of the independent laboratory. The petitioner has not named or communicated the name of the laboratory in his representation and no formalities have been completed. However, the petitioner agitated his right of getting sample only after disposal of 6-A proceedings. In so far as other two lab reports dated 07.02.2001 and 24.07.2001 are concerned, they relate to the samples taken on 15.01.2001 and 03.07.2001 and therefore, it cannot be said that the said reports relate to the same sample taken on 17.10.2000. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a conflict report in respect of samples taken on 17.10.2000. But, however, the said two reports have been considered for the purpose of launching criminal prosecution by the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture and decided to drop the prosecution vide Memo No.Fert.II(1) 430/2001, dated 17.09.2001 i.e. after passing of the confiscation orders. The Department itself has taken a lenient view for initiating the criminal proceedings as it is contemplated two parallel proceedings for violation of the control orders i.e. for confiscation of seized goods and imposing appropriate punishment and penalty. However, having regard to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to reduce the confiscation of the bank guarantee amount from 75% to 50%. Accordingly, the impugned orders are modified, confiscating the bank guarantee amount to an extent of 50% instead of 75% as ordered. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 24.06.2008 Dsr .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Joint Collector (C.S.), Civil Supplies, R.R. District. 2 The Agricultural Officer, Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R. District. 3 2. 2CCs to 4. 2CD copies