CWP No.10599 of 1989 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10599 of 1989 Date of Decision: November 28, 2011 M/s Zamindara Sewa Kender, Sonkra Road, Taraori …..Petitioner Versus State of Hayana and others ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate and Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondents No.4 and 5. K. KANNAN, J(ORAL) The petitioner who was a licencee under the Insecticide Act, 1968 claimed that he was a retailer and the product seized from the petitioner was sealed. He makes an issue of the order that the product taken from his shop was misbranded, ought not to have been taken against the petitioner since it was a sealed product, if at all, the appropriate action must have been taken only against the manufacturer or distributor. The impugned order reveals that after the analysis of the sample of the product was misbranded and even before the authority, the contention had been that the petitioner was not at all at fault and the product was being sold in a sealed container and only the distributor and manufacturer could have been at fault. In a case where the analysis was done in the absence of -1- CWP No.10599 of 1989 the manufacturer or the distributor the cancellation of licence could not have been done where the petitioner was able to point out that the sample taken was from a sealed container and there could not have been any act of the petitioner that could be attributed as violation of any of the provisions of the Insecticide Act. The impugned order is quashed but the petitioner shall be barred from marketing of Isoproturon 75% W.P. of manufacture Milrone, Montari Industries Ltd., which was found to be misbranded. The writ petition is allowed subject to above terms. 28.11.2011 (K. Kannan) Vcgarg Judge -2-