IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 30307 of 1998 Between: M/s Cyanamid Agro Ltd., A Company Regd. under Companies Act, 1956, having its Regs. Office at 'The International' 16, M.K.Road, Churchgate, MUMBAI - 400 020, reptd. by its G.P.A. Holder, Mr. A.S.R. Nair. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd. by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Near Lalbahadur Stadium, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the order of the Ist Respondent in his appeal in Government File No. 2097/F.P.11(1)/98 confirming the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent bearing No. PP11 (1) 2126/97, dt.24.1.1998 prohibiting the stocking/ storing and selling of Phorate 10% G manufactured by the petitioner in the entire state of A.P. as arbitrary, illegal and void and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.S.R.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following : HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 30307 of 1998 ORDER: This is a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the order of the first respondent dated 3.09.1998 passed in appeal No.2097/F.P.11(1)/98 in confirming the order of the second respondent dated 24.1.1998 prohibiting the stocking/ storing and selling of Phorate 10% G manufactured by the petitioner, in the entire State, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner is the manufacturer of Phorate 10% G and has distribution network throughout India. The Inspector of Insecticides visited the shop, collected the samples, sent the same for analysis and it was found to be sub-standard product. On that basis, the Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, second respondent herein passed an order dated 24.1.1998 directing that the said product shall not be stocked/stored or sold and distributed in Andhra Pradesh State until further orders. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner preferred Appeal No.2097/F.P.11(1)/98 before the first respondent. The first respondent passed an order on 3.9.1998, which reads as follows: “Since the sample on analysis failed both in state and central laboratories, there is no merit in the case and hence the appeal is dismissed. As the party has been conducting business by taking protection under Rule 11(c) of insecticide Rules, 1971 the orders prohibiting the product from stocking/storing and selling in A.P. will come into force with effect from the date of communication of this orders.” The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, preferred the present Writ Petition challenging both the orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders passed by both the authorities are contrary to the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 30.12.1997, whereunder the petitioner was asked to show- cause as to why the product should not be prohibited for a period of six months under Section 18(1) of the Insecticides Act. But, the authorities, who passed the impugned orders did not specify the period of prohibition and the operative portion of the orders of first respondent indicates that the product has been prohibited forever. In the light of the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the impugned orders may be set aside. After hearing both the counsel and after going through the impugned orders, I made to understand that the mind of the concerned authority is reflected through the show-cause notice dated 30.12.1997, which clearly indicates that the second respondent intended to prohibit the product for a period of six months. In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate if the period of prohibition is confined to six months. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned orders, to the extent of prohibiting the product is confirmed, but the period of prohibition is limited to the period of six months from the date of the order passed by the appellate authority. No order as to costs. ________ Dr. G. YETHIRAJULU.J 26th FEBRUARY, 2008 Tsr. To 1 The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Near Lalbahadur Stadium, Hyderabad. 3. Two C.C.s to G.P. for Agriculture, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 4. Two C.D. copies.