IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18154 of 2009 Between: M/s.Vinayaka Fertilizers Limited, Nayakneri Road, V. Kota, Chittoor District, rep. by its Proprietor B.R. Sankar Babu ... PETITIONER a n d The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by it’s the District Collector, Chittoor and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by M/s.Vinayaka Fertilizers Limited, represented by its Proprietor B.R. Sankar Babu, seeking writ of certiorari calling for the connected records including the impugned orders dated 05-08-2009 and 17-08-2009 and quash the same and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue the business by renewing the licence. 2. This is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court. The petitioner is a fertilizer dealer. The licence issued in the name of the petitioner expired by 04-06-2009. The petitioner made an application on 06-07-2009 for renewal of the licence. While so, the Agricultural Officer conducted inspection of the shop of the petitioner and seized the stocks of fertilizers on the ground that the petitioner is transacting the business without a valid licence. Challenging the seizure of the stocks the petitioner filed W.P.No.15385 of 2009. The writ petition came to be closed giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings No.D1/487/08 dated nil-07-2009 issued by the District Collector, Chittor – first respondent. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P.No.15604 of 2009 for quashing the order nil-07-2009 passed by the first respondent. The said writ petition came to be disposed of 31-07-2009. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder: “Under these circumstances, I feel it appropriate to direct the respondents to release the seized stocks to the petitioner subject to his furnishing bank guarantee for its value. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Palamner, Chittoor District, respondent No.1 herein, is directed to receive the petitioner’s application for renewal, if made, within a period of one week from today; and shall dispose of the said application within one week from today; and shall dispose of the said application within one week thereafter. Till the disposal of the said application, the petitioner shall not sell the fertilizers. If the petitioner’s license is renewed, he is entitled to continue the business. Otherwise, the respondents shall take appropriate action in respect of the fertilizers released to the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.” 4. Pursuant to the direction given in the above-referred writ petition, the petitioner made an application to the third respondent. The third respondent returned the application on the ground that the petitioner has not paid the requisite fee. The petitioner rectified the defect as to the payment of requisite fee and resubmitted the application. The third respondent rejected the application on 17-08- 2009. The said order is assailed in this writ petition. 5. Rule nisi came to be issued on 23-09-2009 and interim direction has also been granted on the even date vide W.P.M.P.No.23773 of 2009. 6. The respondents entered appearance and filed W.V.M.P.No.3547 of 2009 with a prayer to vacate the interim order. 7. The respondents stated in their counter-affidavit that as per the Clause 11(1) of the Fertilizer Control Order every holder of a Certificate of Registration shall make an application for renewal before the date of expiry of the said certificate. As per Clause 11(3) of the Fertilizer Control Order, the licence shall be renewed within one month from the date of expiry period of validity on payment of such additional fee in addition to the fee for renewal. In the present case, the third respondent has addressed a letter to the petitioner dated 07-06-2009 informing that the petitioner’s licence expired on 04-06-2009 and the time for renewal is upto 03-07-2009. However, the petitioner has not taken any steps for getting the licence renewed. 8. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration with the consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for the respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not make application within time since he fell ill and subsequently he made an application for renewal of licence. By that time there was delay of only two (2) days. Further submission has made that the third respondent is not competent to reject the application filed by him seeking renewal of licence and it is only the second respondent who is competent to consider the grant of renewal of licence. The factual aspect of the second respondent being the competent authority to consider the renewal of licence is not contradicted by the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3. 11. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner seeking renewal of his licence in accordance with the Fertilizer Control Order. Since the application submitted by the petitioner is stated to have been returned by the third respondent, the petitioner has to resubmit the application to the second respondent and thereupon the second respondent has to pass appropriate order within two (2) weeks. Interim order dated 23-09- 2009 granted in W.P.M.P.No.23773 of 2009 shall stand vacated. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J June 30, 2010. Note: Registry is directed to return all the original documents to the petitioner. ________ BSSR, J Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. B/o.PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18154 of 2009 June 30, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. B/o.PN