THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.30581 of 2011 Date: 18.11.2011 Between : Chatak Agro (India) Pvt. Ltd., L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. … Petitioners and The Commissioner of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.30581 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri D.V. Seetharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company as well as the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner-Company holds authorisation bearing No.33/2009, valid upto 24.7.2012, obtained under the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (for brevity “the Control Order”) for the manufacture of fertilizers. As some of the products manufactured by it were found non-standard, action was initiated for cancellation of its authorisation. The 2nd respondent-Additional Director of Agriculture, eventually after due notice to the petitioner- Company, cancelled the authorisation vide impugned order No.Fert II(1)/1185/2009, dated 5.10.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Company has filed the present writ petition. 3. Though several contentions, touching upon the merits of the case, have been urged in assailing the impugned order, this Court is not inclined to examine the same in view of the fact that the petitioner-Company has an effective alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order in which all the contentions, including the facts and law, can more appropriately be addressed. 4. Clause 32-A (iii) of the Control Order specifically provides an appeal against the cancellation of authorisation to the notified authority. It is stated that, in the instant case, the Commissioner of Agriculture has been notified as the appellate authority. The instant case does not fall within the exceptions viz., lack of jurisdiction or violation of the principles of natural justice or infringement of Fundamental Rights of the petitioner-Company. Therefore, the instant case is not an exception to entertain a writ petition. 5. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the petitioner-Company, which, in fact, it has pleaded in para-33 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, for not availing the Statutory remedy of appeal is that, it has an apprehension that the appeal will not be disposed of within a reasonable time. The petitioner-Company cites its experience that earlier when it preferred an appeal, the same was disposed of only after three months. If this alone is the apprehension of the petitioner- Company to by-pass the appeal remedy, appropriate directions can be issued for disposal of the appeal within a time frame. 6. In view of the above circumstances, while declining to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner-Company to file an appeal against the impugned order dated 5.10.2011 before the competent authority i.e., 1st respondent-Commissioner of Agriculture, Hyderabad and, on such appeal being filed, the 1st respondent shall consider and dispose of the same by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the appeal. 7. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 18.11.2011. NOTE: Issue C.C. by 21.11.2011. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.30581 of 2011 18.11.2011 (Msr)