THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.Nos.17811, 17819, 17827, 17828 and 17911 of 2011 W.P.No.17811 of 2011 BETWEEN: M/s. Enrich Bio-Tech Rep. by its partner Lakshmi Rajyam T. …. PETITIONER And The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Opp. L.B. Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, A.P. …. RESPONDENT Counsel for petitioner: Smt. B.V. Aparna Lakshmi Sri P. Sriharsha Reddy Counsel for respondent: G.P. for Agriculture The Court made the following order: ORDER: Heard Sri C.V. Bhaskar Reddy representing Smt. B.V. Aparna Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for respondent, and with their consent the writ petitions are disposed of at this stage. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the action of the respondent, viz., Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, A.P. Hyderabad, in interfering with their business in manufacturing/marketing the bio-products by issuing Memo No.PP.II(1) 2085/2005, dated 21.01.2006 and Letter No.PP.II(1)2085/2005, dated 21.01.2006, as illegal and consequently to forbear the respondent from interfering with their business activities in dealing with the bio- products. The petitioners are manufacturers/marketers of bio-products such as Amino Acids, See Weed, Extracts, Enzymes etc., with various brand names. They claim that the said bio-products are manufactured without using any toxic chemicals and are useful to enrich the soil and ensure protection of land/crops from viral, bacterial, fungus and other infections, resulting in more production. According to the petitioners, the products manufactured by them are not covered either under the Insecticides Act 1968 or Fertilizer Control (Order) Act, 1985. Therefore, there is no obligation on them to obtain licences under the said Acts for manufacturing/marketing the bio-products. Hence it is their case that the respondent has no jurisdiction to interfere with their business activities in dealing with the bio-products under the guise of the impugned Memo and the letter. The impugned action of the respondent was under challenge at the instance of some manufacturers in W.P.Nos.8207 of 2006 and batch. In the said cases, even though the respondents admitted that the bio-products are not covered either under the Insecticides Act 1968 or under Fertilizer Control (Order) Act 1985, the action was sought to be justified in the interests of the farmer community for ensuring that the products manufactured by the petitioners do not contain prohibited chemical composition. High Level Committee was constituted to scrutinize the proposals received for according permissions for marketing the bio-products, and the High Level Committee fixed certain parameters to evaluate and accord permissions. Therefore, in order to ensure the implementation of the parameters fixed by the said Committee, the impugned Memo was issued. In view of the admitted fact that no licences are required under the said Acts for manufacture/sale of bio-products, this Court held that the respondent cannot interfere with the sale and distribution so long as the products do not contain any ingredients of insecticides, giving liberty to the concerned authorities to take appropriate action if the products contain any chemicals or insecticides, in exercise of powers under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Later taking into consideration the practical problems faced by the authorities in the implementation of the said order, this Court in a batch of cases gave the following directions. a) “It shall be open to the petitioner to submit a sample of 5 Kg. of each product dealt with by them, together with the corresponding literature throwing light upon the manufacturing process as well as the contents thereof, to the respondent herein; b) within (8) weeks from the date of submission of the samples and the literature by the petitioner, the respondent shall get the same analyzed in a suitable laboratory and intimate the result of the analysis to the petitioner; c) in case, the analysis reveals that the products dealt with by the petitioner answer the description of the products mentioned in Schedule – III to the Control Order, the petitioner shall be entitled to deal with the products only after obtaining licence under the Control Order. On the other hand, if the result is found otherwise, the petitioner shall not be subjected to the regime under the Control order of the Act; and d) if the respondent fails to intimate the result of the analysis within eight (8) weeks from the date of submission of the samples and the literature, it shall be open to the petitioner to deal with the products, notwithstanding the impugned letter and the memo, as long as the products are not insecticides or chemicals. It is also made clear that in the event the respondent receives any complaints from the ryots with regard to the quality of the bio-products supplied by the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to take necessary action in accordance with law.” When the present cases came up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for respondent has brought to the notice of this Court that the authorities are experiencing practical difficulties in giving effect to the aforesaid directions. According to him, even though this Court directed that the manufacturers/marketers should submit samples of the products together with the corresponding literature relating to the manufacturing process and the contents of the products, they are not furnishing the composition/components of the products due to which it has become difficult to get the products analyzed in the laboratories. Further, it is causing heavy financial burden on the department. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners should be directed to supply the samples along with composition/components, and permit the authorities to take samples from the manufacturing units besides directing the petitioners to bear the expenses for analysis of the products. It is true that mere literature throwing light on the manufacturing process and the contents are not helpful. In the absence of the composition/components, it is difficult to get the product chemically analysed. The laboratories do not undertake chemical analysis free of cost and the Department cannot be burdened with expenditure in order to ensure the business of the petitioners. Therefore, it shall be the responsibility of the petitioners to supply not only the literature relating to the manufacturing process and the contents but also the composition/components of the products, besides bearing the expenses towards chemical analysis. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri C.V. Bhasker Reddy representing Smt. B.V. Aparna Lakshmi fairly concedes and submits that the petitioners have no objection to supply the composition/components of the products and remit necessary amounts towards expenses. In view of the aforesaid submissions, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following comprehensive directions. a) The petitioners shall submit a sample of 5 kgs., of each product dealt with by them together with the corresponding literature throwing light upon the manufacturing process as well as the contents thereof together with the composition/components of the products to the respondent herein. b) Each of the petitioners shall remit a sum of Rs.5000/- along with the samples to the respondent to meet the expenses of analysis. c) Within eight weeks form the date of compliance of conditions as indicated in Clauses (a) and (b) by the petitioners the respondent shall get the same analyzed in a suitable laboratory and intimate the result of the analysis to the petitioners. d) The petitioners shall also permit the officers authorized by the respondent to collect the samples from the manufacturing units/sale points. e) The petitioners shall furnish details of their sale points to the respondent for drawal of samples. f) In case, the analysis reveals that the products dealt with by the petitioners answer the description of the products mentioned in Schedule – III to the Control Order and the Insecticides Act, they shall be entitled to deal with the products only after obtaining licence under the Control Orders. On the other hand, if the result is found otherwise, the petitioners shall not be subjected to the regime under the Control orders; and g) If the respondent fails to intimate the result of the analysis within eight (8) weeks from the date of submission of the samples as indicated above, it shall be open to the petitioners to deal with the products, notwithstanding the impugned letter and the memo, as long as the products are not insecticides or chemicals. It is also made clear that in the event the respondent receives any complaints from the ryots with regard to the quality of the bio- products supplied by the petitioners, it shall be open to the respondent to take necessary action in accordance with law. Subject to the above conditions these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 28th June, 2011 Js