* THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +WRIT PETITION No.11773 OF 2001 %Dated 29.12.2008 #the Fertilizers, Pesticides and Seeds Dealers Welfare Association, Hyderabad. …Petitioner. and $ The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents ! Counsel for petitioner: Sri V.Srinivas ^ Counsel for Respondents : GP for Agriculture < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11773 of 2001 Between: The Fertilisers, Pestisides & Seeds Dealers Welafer Association (Regd No. 1513/00) Rep. by its Vice President N K C Shekar Hyderguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner & Director of Agriculture Government of Andhra Pradesh, Opp: L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad. 2 Joint Director of Agriculture Z.P. Building, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3 Joint Director of Agriculture Ranga Reddy District. 4 Joint Director of Agriculture Sangareddy, Medak District. 5 Joint Director of Agriculture Mahaboobnagar District. 6 Joint Director of Agriculture Warangal District. 7 Joint Director of Agriculture Nalgonda District. 8 Joint Director of Agriculture Karimnagar District. 9 Joint Director of Agriculture Khammam District. 10 Joint Director of Agriculture Adilabad District. 11 Joint Director of Agriculture Nizamabad District. 12 Joint Director of Agriculture Srikakulam District. 13 Joint Director of Agriculture Visakhapatnam District. 14 Joint Director of Agriculture Vizianagarm District. 15 Joint Director of Agriculture West Godavari District. 16 Joint Director of Agriculture East Godavri District. 17 Joint Director of Agriculture Krishna District. 18 Joint Director of Agriculture Prakasam District. 19 Joint Director of Agriculture Kurnool District. 20 Joint Director of Agriculture Ananthapur District. 21 Joint Director of Agriculture Cuddapah District. 22 Joint Director of Agriculture, Chittoor District. 23 Joint Director of Agriculture, Nellore District. 24 Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, Direction or Directions to declare the action of the Respondents in insisting the members of the Petitioner Association to obtain separate licenses by paying separate fee in respect of their Shops and Godowns for dealing in same kind of Insecticides under the Insecticide rule 1971, and to issue a consequential direction to the Respondent to act in accordance with law. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is an association of dealers in fertilizers, pesticides and seeds in the state of A.P. They feel aggrieved by the insistence on the part of the respondents requiring the members of the association to obtain licences under the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder separately for godowns. The petitioner contends that Rule 10 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (for short ‘the Rules’), which provides for licences for sale and other activities in insecticides, requires the applications to be made in Form VI or VII and the licence is to be issued in Form VIII. According to them, there is no separate provision or form for grant of licences exclusively for godowns. It is also their case that the forms as well as licences mentioned not only the premises where the insecticides are sold, but also the places where they are stored. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit trying to justify the instances of obtaining separate licences. According to them, sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Rules, mandates that separate licence be obtained, where the activities are undertaken at more places than one. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Agriculture. The Act with the Rules made thereunder is a comprehensive code regulating the manufacture, sale, distribution and stocking of insecticides. Rule 10 of the Rules prescribes the procedure for grant of renewal of licences. The rule to the extent it is necessary for this case reads as under: “10.Licence for sale, etc., of insecticides: (1) Applications for the grant or renewal of a licence to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute insecticides shall be made in Form VI or Form VII, as the case may be, to the licensing officer and shall be accompanied by the fees specified in sub-rule (2). (2) The fee payable under sub-rule (1) for grant or renewal of a licence shall be rupees five hundred for every insecticide for which the licence is applied. There shall be a separate fee for each place, if any insecticide is sold, stocked or exhibited for sale at more than one place: Provided that the maximum fee payable in respect of insecticides commonly used for household purposes and registered as such shall be rupees seven thousand five hundred for every place: Provided further that, if the place of sale is established in the rural areas, the fee shall be one-fifth of the fee specified in this rule. (3) If any insecticide is proposed to be sold or stocked for sale at more than one place, separate applications shall be made and separate licences shall be issued in respect of every such place and for every insecticides. (4) A licence to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute insecticides shall be issued in Form VIII and shall be subject to the following conditions namely: xxx.” The rest of the Rule is omitted as not necessary. From this, it becomes clear that an application for grant of licence to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute insecticides is to be made in Form VI and the application for renewal thereof, is to be made in Form VII. The licence is to be issued in Form VIII. At every place in the Rule, the activities of sale, stocking, exhibition of sale or distribution are mentioned conjointly. All these places are to be mentioned in the applications as well as licence. The activities of sale, stock or exhibition are not dealt with independently. In fact, the Rules do not permit an exclusive activity of stocking of pesticides. It is only in the context of sale of the product. In the application, separate provision is made for mentioning the premises where insecticides are stored and the place where they are sold. Therefore, the view taken by the respondents does not fit into the scheme of the Act and the Rules. The grievance expressed by the respondents is that the dealers are conducting sales at the godowns also. Even if that is true, it is not known as to how they proposed to curb it by insisting on obtaining separate licences. Firstly, the rules do not contemplate issuance for exclusive licence for stocking or for godowns. It is always an ancillary to the licence to sell. Secondly, even if an independent licence is applied and issued for godowns, that would only strengthen the activities, which are otherwise illegal. The reason is that the person holding independent licence would feel more at liberty, compared to the one under a conjoint licence. Viewed from any angle, the stand taken by the respondents cannot be countenanced. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and it is directed that the respondents shall not insist that the members of the petitioner shall obtain licence for godowns. It is, however, clarified that the licencees shall not be entitled to undertake the activity of sales at godowns, even if mentioned in the licence. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt.29.12.2008 Note: L.R.Copy to marked. GJ