IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5069 of 2011 Date of Decision : March 21, 2011. M/s. Bhaika Pesticides and Seeds Store .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab & Ors. .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr. Arun Chandra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accept notice on behalf of the respondents. Let two copies of the writ petition be supplied to her during the course of day. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner-firm is a licensee under the Insecticide Act, 1968. The Insecticide Inspector, Bathinda, inspected the petitioner's premises on 7.1.2010 located in the grain market at Goniana and took a sample of Endosulphan 35% EC Batch No.KAI-01 which was to expire in C.W.P.No .5069 of 2011 2 November, 2010. The sample was sent to the Insecticide Laboratory, Ludhiana for its analysis and was found 'mis-branded'. The petitioner- firm's licence was accordingly cancelled after following the due procedure . The petitioner went in appeal which has been allowed in part vide the order dated 21.2.2011 (Annexure P-6) to the extent that the petitioner has been debarred from selling the insecticides manufactured by M/s. Western Crop Science, Gujrat. The petitioner-firm's contention is that since the sample was admittedly packed (and not loose), the petitioner who has merely sold the same is not liable to be prosecuted and/or subjected to cancellation proceedings and is entitled to the protection of Section 30 (3) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in M/s. Kishan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agriculture Officers Ferozepur and Another, 1990 SCC (Crl) 623. It appears from the impugned order that the above-stated contention was raised by the petitioner-firm before the Appellate Authority also but the same has been turned down without reference to the above cited decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since Section 30 (3) of the Act provides a defence to the person who is not an 'importer' or 'manufacture' of the insecticide though it is for him to prove the ingredients of Clauses (a), (b) & (c) of the said provision. No direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner on the presumption that it was not at fault. At the same time, it become imperative upon the authorities below to consider as to whether or not the petitioner is C.W.P.No .5069 of 2011 3 entitled to the benefit of Section 30 (3) of the Act, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Kishan Beej Bhandar's case (Supra). The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part; the impugned appellate order dated 21.1.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Appellate Authority to the extent of restoring the petitioner's license except for the products manufactured and supplied by M/s. Western Crop Science, Waghodia, Gujrat, is upheld and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to decide afresh as to whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 30(3) of the Act read with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Kishan Beej Bhandar's case (Supra). The above noticed aspect of the matter would be decided by the Appellate Authority within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Let a copy of this order be given dasti to Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for information and necessary compliance. Dasti. March 21, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE