IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 5971 of 2009 M/S Sri Ambika Sales Corporation, C-149, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna through Its proprietor Birendra Singh, son of Sri Rajkeshwar Singh, Resident of Mohalla – Sheopuri, P S – Sri Krishnapuri, District – Patna - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Director (Agriculture), Bihar, Patna 3 The District Agriculture Officer, Patna - Respondents *** For the S t a t e : M/s A Amanullah, SC XVII & M K Patha, AC to SC XVII *** 3 15.05.2009 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Agriculture Officer, Patna as contained in Memo No 637 dated 18.04.2009 by which petitioner has been communicated that pursuant to the directions of the Director, Agriculture, Bihar, Patna, petitioner’s whole certificate of registration for dealing in fertiliser was being cancelled with immediate effect. A perusal of the communication would show that the entire proceedings suffer from one fundamental legal defect. It is not in dispute that so far as petitioner is concerned, his certificate of registration has been granted by the District Agriculture Officer, Patna who is the registering authority. It appears because of certain derelictions, the Director of Agriculture issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for cancellation of his certificate of registration. I may point out that Director of Agriculture is the registering authority for purposes of certificate of registration for the whole of Bihar. So far as District Agriculture Officer is concerned, he is the registering authority for the district. It is, therefore, clear that the Director of Agriculture 2 could not exercise any jurisdiction over the petitioner still he issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. Petitioner filed his reply before the Director of Agriculture. Director of Agriculture considered the same and directed the District Agriculture Officer to cancel the certificate of registration. In my view, this simply cannot be done. This is contrary to the Statute in this regard being the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985. The Director of Agriculture could not have assumed jurisdiction in the matter where he inherently lacked jurisdiction. Further, he had no business to direct a subordinate officer to exercise his jurisdiction in any particular manner. The jurisdiction being statutory and governed by statutory provisions, such interference is contemplated under the Fertiliser Control Order. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is quashed accordingly. The writ application is allowed. However, I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegation one way or the other. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)