IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.8855 of 2002 Between: G.Padmavathi W/o.Mohan Rao Seeds and General Merchant, Hanuman Temple Toad, Khammam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Asst.Director of Agrl. Khammam, Khammam District. 2 The Joint Director of Agrl. Khammam, Khammam District. 3 The Commissioner and Director of Agrl./Appellate Authority, A.P., Hyderabad. .....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 to issue writ or certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records pertaining to order passed by 3rd respondent dismissing the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner against the order dt.28-12-2001 in Proc.No.64/7035/2001, dt.28-12-2001 passed by 2nd respondent, communicated to the petitioner vide Lr.No.PP II (2) 29/2002, dt.3-4-2002 and by holding the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional or pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KMR} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.8855 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was the proprietor of Sri Krishna Sai Fertilizers and Pesticides, Seeds and General Merchant, Hanuman Temple Road, Khammam District and he had obtained the licence bearing No.491/2001, dated 27.06.2001 valid upto 31.12.2002 issued under Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). While so, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 07.12.2001 to show cause as to why his licence should not been cancelled, if no explanation is ﬁled within three days for the illegal storage of insecticides which are prohibited for sale in the godown of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner ﬁled an explanation dated 26.12.2001, but his explanation was not considered, and without considering his explanation, the 2nd respondent cancelled his licence by order dated 28.12.2001. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, A.P.Hyderabad and the appellate authority by order dated 03.04.2002, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition, contending that his explanation was not at all considered and the opportunity given for three days alone for submitting explanation is not reasonable and suﬃcient, and therefore, the cancellation order passed by the 2nd respondent as well as the order of the appellate authority are unsustainable. The petitioner was the licence holder to sell stock or exhibit for sale or distribute by retail insecticide vide licence No.491/2002, dated 27.06.2001 valid upto 31.12.2002. It is stated that the Assistant Director of Agriculture/Insecticide Inspector, Khammam, inspected the godown of the petitioner on 05.12.2001 based on the complaint given by the ryots stating that the petitioner stored prohibited insecticides i.e. Formite (Ethion 50% EC) manufactured by M/s.Pesticides in the godown, taken on rent by the petitioner. The prohibited insecticides were also seized by the inspecting authorities. As the storage of the insecticides, which were prohibited to sell, was in violation of the provisions of the Sec.18 and 29 of the Act and the Rules madeunder, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation within three days as to why his licence shall not be cancelled. The petitioner ﬁled his explanation on 15.12.2001 and thereafter submitted another explanation on 26.12.2001. I perused both the explanations dated 15.12.2001 and 26.12.2001. In explanation dated 15.12.2001 it is stated that there was no inspection and the prohibited insecticide was not at all seized and the said insecticide do not belong to the petitioner and the petitioner has no connection or relation with regard to storage of said insecticide. Thus, the petitioner has denied the storage and the inspection and seizure of the said prohibited insecticide and submitted that the petitioner has not violated any of the provisions of the Insecticides Act and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner submits that the allegations made in the show cause notice with regard to the inspection and seizure of the insecticides under cover of Panchanama dated 15.12.2001 is without any basis whatsoever. If the inspection of the said godown is disputed, I am of the opinion that the burden lies on the petitioner to rebut the said allegation by adducing any cogent evidence. But the petitioner is not disputing the inspection and the seizure, but only stated that there is no basis for making allegations in the show cause notice. The petitioner never disputed with regard to the inspection report and the seizure report. No doubt in the cancellation order, the explanation was not discussed or considered except referring the same in the reference, but the appellate authority has considered all contentions of the petitioner and held that as per the complaint ﬁled by the farmers about the illegal stocking of the products in the premises of the petitioner, the premises was inspected and seized the stocks. If the petitioner was not the owner of the premises in question, he would have submitted some evidence stating that he has not owned the said premises and taken the same on rent and that therefore he has no relation or connection with regard to storage of prohibited insecticides. The petitioner, except denying the allegations in the show cause notice, did not dispute the inspection report and Panchanama, and therefore, it cannot be said that there was no connection or relation with regard to the storage of the prohibited insecticides by the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the procedure as laid down under Sec.22 of the Act was not followed by the Insecticides Inspector while inspecting the premises and seizing the stocks. It is further stated that under Sec.29 of the Act for the ﬁrst oﬀence, the imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with ﬁne may be imposed, but for the second oﬀence only, the imprisonment of three years and ﬁne of Rs.15,000/- may be imposed, and therefore, it is not a case for cancellation of the licence, and the petitioner is entitled for lesser punishment of imposing some fine instead of canceling his licence. In the instance case, after inspection and the seizure of the stocks, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and after receiving his explanation only, the licence has been cancelled. Whether the procedure has been followed or not that was not the grievance of the petitioner in the explanation submitted before the authorities. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that there was no inspection, no seizure of stocks and that the said gown does not belong to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 21.08.2008 Dsr ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Asst.Director of Agrl. Khammam, Khammam District. 2 The Joint Director of Agrl. Khammam, Khammam District. 3 The Commissioner and Director of Agrl./Appellate Authority, A.P., Hyderabad. 4 2. 2CCs to 5. 2CD copies