IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16645 of 2010 M/S Bihar Agro Industries, a Proprietary Concern having its place of business at Ram Manohar Lohia Path, Forbesganj, District-Araria through its Proprietor, Abhay Kumar Duggar, S/o late Surajmal Duggar, Resident of at Ram Manohar Lohia Path, P.S. Forbesganj, District- Araria …………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Director (Agriculture), Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Joint Director, Agriculture (Upadan), Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Dy. Director, Agriculture (Plant), Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 5. The District Agriculture Officer, Araria ……… Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: M/s. S.D.Sanjay, Gautam Kejariwal, Alok Kumar and Mrs. Sushila Agrawal, Advocates For the State: Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, AC to SC 4 ----------- 2. 1.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.9.2010 passed by the Agricultural Production Commissioner in Appeal No. 3/2010 by which he has rejected the appeal and affirmed the impugned order dated 14.6.2010 passed by the Director, Agriculture who had refused to renew the certificate of registration of the petitioner for the manufacture of Mixture of Fertilizers and also for sale of the fertilizers and further consequential 2 directions. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner has been carrying on the business of manufacture of Granulated Mixture of Fertilizers since 1977 for which he was granted certificate of registration one in Form-F for manufacture of Granulated Mixture of Fertilizers and the other in Form-B to carry on business of selling the Mixture of Fertilizers as a Wholesale Dealer. The same was lastly renewed by order dated 14.12.2006 up to 13.12.2009. The petitioner applied for renewal of the licence on 21.12.2009 after rectification of certain technical errors in the application. A surprise inspection was made of the Laboratory in the business premises of the petitioner in 2010. The Unit was closed at the relevant time. In the inspection report it was noted that most of the equipments as required by Clause 21A of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 were available except for a few as noted therein. It was also noted that the production unit was found closed and so far as the testing and the quality of the Laboratory was concerned, it may be done practically when the Unit was functioning. No other adverse remark was made 3 against the Laboratory. The case of the petitioner is that immediately thereafter the equipments which were found short were purchased by the petitioner and intimation regarding the same was also sent by letter dated 9.6.2010 to the Director, Agriculture. However, the Director, Agriculture by his impugned order dated 14.6.2010, on the basis of the inspection report came to the conclusion that certain equipments were not available. He also found that the Inspecting Team had found the Unit in a dilapidated condition and the Mixture Fertilizers were not in production and the unit was also closed. He further noted that the management did not produce any document in relation to the investigations as being carried out in the Laboratory. He also noted the statement of the petitioner that certain equipments have been kept in scrap and within one month they would be purchased. On the basis of the said findings he came to the conclusion that the registration certificate should not be renewed. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed an appeal before the Agriculture Production Commissioner, who, after noting the main 4 ground that there was non-maintenance of equipments needed for Quality Control and bad pitiable condition of the laboratory, held that the findings are not denied by the appellant and did not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Director, Agriculture. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the impugned orders of the Director, Agriculture and the appellate order of the Agriculture Commissioner suffer from non-application of mind. It is urged that the petitioner having rectified the defect of shortage of equipments found in the inspection report, there was no occasion for passing of the impugned orders. Learned counsel further challenges the statements made in the appellate order that the findings are not denied by the appellant whereas, the petitioner had much earlier intimated the Director, Agriculture by letter dated 11.6.2010 regarding the purchase of the equipments which had been found short by the inspection team. Learned counsel also assails the findings recorded by the Director, Agriculture regarding the bad and pitiable condition of the laboratory whereas no such finding has been recorded by the Inspection Team and thus 5 the order of the Director, Agriculture as also the appellate authority, according to him, are perverse being contrary to the materials on the record. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the orders in question are violative of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as his right to carry on his business has been denied on false and technical grounds without looking into the rectification already made by the petitioner of the lacuna that had been found by the Inspection Team. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned orders but he is unable to show as to why the letter dated 9.6.2010 of the petitioner addressed to the Director, Agriculture in which the entire details including the evidence showing purchase of the equipments had not been considered if not by the Director, Agriculture who passed his order within two days of the sending of the said letter, at least by the appellate authority. It is evident from the impugned orders that they suffer from non-application of mind to the requirements of the Fertilizer Control Order not only with respect to the 6 facts of the case but also the requirement of law. Once the petitioner had taken the stand that shortage of equipments in the Laboratory was rectified, either the respondent-authorities ought to have accepted the same or they could have made inspection of the Laboratory to verify the statements made and thereafter appropriate orders should have been passed keeping in view the valuable rights of the petitioner involved in the matter. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, the orders dated 14.6.2010 of the Director, Agriculture and 31.8/13.9.2010 of the Agriculture Production Commissioner are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Director, Agriculture to consider the question of renewal of the registration certificate of the petitioner in accordance with law after considering the documents submitted by the petitioner and, if necessary, by getting the inspection of the petitioner’s laboratory done by a team of competent Officers. Let the application for renewal of the petitioner be considered and disposed of within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this 7 order. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. S. Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)