IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20251 of 2010 M/S Himalaya Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., having its place of business at Raniganj Road, Forbesganj, District-Araria through its Managing Director, Shambhu Goel, S6 Shri O.M. Agrawal, R/o D.D. Road, P.O.-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 : Mr. Satya Darshi Sanjay, Advocate. Mr. Gautam Kejariwal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. A. Amanullah,G.A.-9. ----------- 5. 27.01.2011 1. I.A. No. 351 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner for amendment in the prayer and relief portion of the main writ petition by way of adding the following three reliefs to the original two reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the main writ petition: (iii) For quashing the order dt. 6.1.2011 communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 25 dt. 7.1.2011 by which the Respondent has declined to renew the Certificate of Registration of the Petitioner on the nonest ground; (iv) For a declaration that the impugned order of rejection of renewal has not only wholly arbitrary and malafide but also discriminatory as in the identical situation another Mixture Unit has been granted the renewal whereas in the case of the Petitioner it has been declined; (v) For a direction to the Respondents to renew the Certificate of registration of the petitioner as the Petitioner has fulfilled all the criteria and has also not - 2 - violated any provision of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, much less Clause 12 and 7 of the same. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties, interlocutory application is allowed. Let the said reliefs be added to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: (i) For a direction to the Respondents to pass final Order in the matter of renewal of Certificate of Registration for manufacture & sale of Mixture of Fertilizers within a fixed time frame at the earliest in view of the Order dt. 30.09.2010 passed by the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar, Patna in Appeal No. 7/2010 communicated vide Memo No. 4964 dt. 30.09.2010; & (ii) For restraining the Respondents from taking any coercive measure against the petitioner restricting the petitioner from continuing with the manufacturing activities in view of Clause 18(4) read with Rule Clause 11(4) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985; and for any other relief(s) for which the Petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts & circumstances of the present case. 5. To the aforesaid reliefs, the above mentioned three reliefs have been added by way of amendment by the petitioner, which has been allowed. 6. This case earlier came before this court on - 3 - 20.12.2010 when after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials on record, it became apparent that the matter in question is for renewal of certificate of registration for manufacture and sale of mixture of fertilizers. For renewal of the certificate of registration, an application was made by the petitioner before the Director(Agriculture), Government of Bihar (Respondent no. 2) which was rejected on 23.07.2010 (Annexure- 3) giving 30 days time to the petitioner to file appeal under the provision of Clause 32 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 7 of 2010 before the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar (Respondent no. 1) which was allowed by the said authority vide order dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure-4) and the matter was remanded to the Director (Agriculture), Government of Bihar to pass a fresh order considering various aspects of the issues raised by the petitioner. It transpires that while the matter was pending before the Director (Agriculture), this writ petition was filed and hence, this court vide order dated 20.12.2010 directed that the matter pending before the Director (Agriculture) be decided by him within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order and the case was directed to be listed before this court thereafter. 7. It further transpires that the said order of this court has been complied and the Director (Agriculture), Government of Bihar decided the matter by rejecting the claim of - 4 - the petitioner vide order dated 06.01.2011 (Annexure-16). The claim of the petitioner is that the said authority has not only violated the specific direction given by the appellate authority but has also ignored the decisions of this court in similar matters. 8. Clause 15 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 is with respect to grant or refusal of certificate of manufacture for preparation of mixtures of fertilizers, bio-fertilizers or organic fertilizers whereas Clause 18 refers for renewal of certificate of manufacture for preparation of mixtures of fertilizers, bio- fertilizers or organic fertilizers. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause 32 and 32A provides an appeal at the Central Government Level but the said appeal can only be against order of refusal or grant such a certificate, whereas in the instant case, the matter is not with regard to refusal or grant of certificate but is with regard to refusal to renew the certificate, hence, there is no occasion for the petitioner to file an appeal against the said order and this writ petition is the proper form for raising such dispute. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that refusal to grant certificate and refusal to renew the certificate after its expiry are similar matters and the provisions of appeal provided in the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 encompasses both the situations and hence, the petitioner has an appropriate Forum to raise his grievance against the order of the Director (Agriculture), Government of Bihar. - 5 - 11. From the facts and circumstances of this case as well as order of the authorities (Annexure-3 and 4), it is quite apparent that the authorities as well as the petitioner had taken steps as per the Clause 32 and 32A according to which the appeal was filed by the petitioner himself which was entertained by the appellate authority. The impugned order is in continuation of the said battle and hence, the course of appeal being available to the petitioner, there is no occasion for this court to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order of the Director (Agriculture) before the Agriculture Production Commissioner under the aforesaid provisions raising all the points which he raised here and the said appellate authority will decide the same in accordance with law considering the provisions of law as well as the decisions of this court in similar matters. If the petitioner files such an appeal within 15 days from today, the appellate authority shall decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of appeal. Sujit (S. N. Hussain, J.)