HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6276 of 2006 ORDER: The order of the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture dated 04.03.2006, confirming the order of the Joint Director dated 14.11.2005, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The petitioner, a Seed Production, Processing and Marketing Company, used to supply foundation seeds to seed growers selected by it. It claims that its production programme was organized on contractual terms; the seed was to be procured from the seed growers at an agreed price, in case it met all the standards laid down in the Indian Minimum Seed Certification Standards, and was packed for the purposes of marketing; as part of the contract, the seed growers had requested them to supply Anuja-6 seeds, and to deposit the raw seeds at the petitioner’s processing plant; and these lots were to undergo further process including machine processing, sampling, testing etc. On 06.06.2005, the 1st respondent issued a notice for taking samples of seed from the stocks belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of test or analysis. The 1st respondent seized different lots of seeds. The samples were collected from the petitioner’s processing plant, and were sent to the Central Institute for Cotton Research, Nagpur for eliciting opinion whether the samples contained Bt. The Institute, in its report dated 31.08.2005, opined that the lots collected from the petitioner company contain Bt. On the basis of the report, the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 19.09.2005 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why legal action should not be initiated against them under the provisions of Section 19 of the Seeds Act, 1966 besides initiating action as per clause 15 of the Seed Control Order, 1983 for suspension or cancellation of Seed License. The petitioner, vide letter dated 15.10.2005, requested that, since their Managing Director was undergoing treatment on account of heart attack, they be given time of one month till 15.11.2005. It is the petitioner’s case that no reply was received to their request and, on their Managing Director having started attending duties from 12.11.2005, they had submitted their explanation on the same day. However, by memo dated 28.11.2005, the petitioner was informed that on 14.11.2005 an order of cancellation of licence was passed. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent who, by order dated 04.03.2006 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order of the 2nd respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice; the petitioner had, vide letter dated 15.10.2005 sought time till 15.11.2005, even before which date the 2nd respondent had passed the impugned order dated 14.11.2005; the 2nd respondent had abdicated his statutory functions, and had failed to exercise his mind independently to the issue involved; he was fettered by the memo issued by the 3rd respondent dated 28.09.2005; as the impugned order dated 14.11.2005 is vitiated for abdication of statutory functions, it is liable to be set aside; clause 13(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 enables an Inspector to draw samples of seed meant for sale; the expression “meant for sale” means the stage, after the seeds are processed and kept ready for sale; and this specific plea though raised in the grounds of appeal was not considered by the appellate authority (the 3rd respondent) and, as such, the impugned order of the 3rd respondent also suffers from non-application of mind. On the other hand, Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture would submit that, while the order of the 2nd respondent dated 14.11.2005 was passed before the time sought for by the petitioner on 15.11.2005, the said order had merged in the appellate order of the 3rd respondent; consequently the validity of the order of the 2nd respondent cannot be gone into as it is only the order of the 3rd respondent which remains in force; the words “meant for sale” in clause 13(c) of the Seed (Control) order, 1983 is a wide expression bringing within its ambit every stage preceding the sale, including the stage prior to the seeds being processed for the purpose of its sale; and that the orders of the 2nd and 3rd respondents are reasoned and well considered orders. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the memo dated 28.09.2005 is a general memo issued to all the Joint Directors of Agriculture and, in fact, requires them to issue a show cause notice and, thereafter, take action under Clause 13 of the Seeds Control Order; and the said memo which is general in nature cannot be said to have fettered the exercise of statutory functions of the 2nd respondent. Learned Government Pleader would also state that for its sale, and to deal with it in any manner, the Bt. Cotton seeds are required tobe approved by the genetic engineering committee, and the petitioner is required to mention details of the seeds in Form-A which they have not done. While the submission of the Learned Senior Counsel that the 2nd respondent had passed the order dated 14.11.2005 even before expiry of the time sought for by the petitioner till 15.11.2005 cannot be said to be without merit, it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to examine the validity of the order of the 2nd respondent in as much as the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent who, by order dated 04.03.2006, had upheld the order of the 2nd respondent. Learned Senior Counsel does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was given ample opportunity of being heard by the 3rd respondent. The copy of the proceedings dated 28.09.2005, placed before this Court, would fortify the submission of the Learned Government Pleader that the said memo is general in nature, and was issued to all District Joint Directors of Agriculture and not specifically to the 2nd respondent herein and, as such, the said memo cannot be said to have fettered the exercise of statutory functions of the 2nd respondent. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner, in his grounds of appeal, has specifically contended that the seed growers had transported raw seeds to their processing plant situated at Kurnool for further process and procurement; if it fulfilled all terms and conditions, and if the seed met all standards laid down in Indian Minimum Seed Certification Standards, the Seed Inspector and Mandal Agriculture Officer could not have drawn samples, and sent it to C.I.C.R. Nagpur for testing the presence or absence of Bt in the Samples drawn. It is in the light of this specific plea that the contention of the Senior Counsel that the words “meant for sale” in Clause 13(c) of the Seeds Control Order assumes significance. If the construction placed by the Learned Senior Counsel were to find acceptance, it is only after the petitioner had further processed the seeds, and had kept it ready for sale, could the Inspector have drawn samples of such seeds. If, on the other hand, the construction placed on Clause 13(c) by the Learned Government Pleader were to find favour, then the very transportation, of the raw seeds procured, to the petitioner’s processing plant, and its being stored thereat, would justify a sample being drawn under Clause 13(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order. It is wholly inappropriate to examine the contention regarding the interpretation to be placed on Clause 13(c) in as much as the 3rd respondent has not recorded any finding on the petitioner’s contention in this regard, though raised in the grounds of appeal. Failure on the part of the 3rd respondent to deal with the contentions raised would necessitate the order being set aside. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to quash the order of the 3rd respondent dated 04.03.2006 and direct him to consider all the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal afresh, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. It is made clear that the order of the 2nd respondent dated 14.11.2005 shall continue to remain in operation, and shall be subject to any orders which may be passed by the 3rd respondent. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:20.01.2011 MRKR