Case: Seedsman Association, Hyderabad and Others Vs. Principal Secretary to Govt., A.P. and Others

treated were treated and subjected to chemical process for preservation, those grains become commercially known as seeds. If, however, a dealer was found dealing in foodgrains under the garb of seeds, the authorities were not precluded from prosecuting the offender in a criminal Court. The judgment of the High Court was upheld on the following premise: "It is undoubtedly true that foodgrains per se could be used as seeds for being sown and achieving germination, but in that from they retain the dual utility of being foodgrains as well as seeds. By process of coating and applying insecticides; other chemicals and poisonous substance to the foodgrain meant to be utilised as seeds, one of its basic character, i.e. its consumption as food by human beings or animals or for extraction for the like purpose, gets irretrievably lost and such processed seeds become a commodity distinct from foodgrains as commonly understood. That distinction was borne in mind by the High Court in allowing the writ petition of the respondents, and in our view rightly." 8. A similar controversy has recently been examined again by this Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs. Pilibhit Patnagar Beej Ltd. JT 2003(9) SC 548 . The High Court allowed the writ petition of the respondent company, namely, Pilibhit Pantnagar Beej Ltd. and issued a writ of mandamus restraining the Agriculture Market Committee from interfering in the business of the Company in certified seeds and from demanding and realizing market fee on the transaction of unprocessed or processed certified seeds. The case set up by the company was that the business of the company is to purchase breeder seeds from Agricultural Research Institute and thereafter to produce certified seeds. The first step of production is to distribute this breeder seeds to the listed and scheduled farmers. The breeder seeds are sown and are germinated under strict supervision of the statutory Seeds Certification Agency, set up under the Seeds Act, 1966. The harvest is selected carefully under supervision of the Agency. The lots which do not conform to specifications are rejected. The standardized seeds so obtained are called Foundation Seeds. These foundation seeds are thereafter again supplied to the listed farmers variety-wise with intimation to the Agency. The farmers sow these foundation seeds which are also supervised by the Agency. This crop is thus germinated under strict supervision of the Agency and the lots rejected are not taken back by farmers. After harvesting the approved standardized certified seeds, the lots are fumigated for preservation and the samples of each lot is tested in the laboratories of Seeds Certification Agency. The rejected lots and losses at processing are returned to farmers only after the foundation seeds are certified as conforming to specifications, the lots are subjected to treatment with insecticides (Cell phose, Quick phose) and pesticides (thiram and barastin) at the time of packing. The company had filed certificates issued by the Seeds Certification Agency and other relevant documents to show that they are not dealing in sale and purchase of foodgrains or wheat but only in certified seeds and that the stock stored by them were not of wheat but of certified seeds of wheat under the supervision of the U.P. Seeds Certification Agency. Having regard to the material produced by the company it was held that as the wheat seed converted into certified seed is unfit for human consumption, the levy of market fee is not permissible. 9. The writ petitioner no.1 in the writ petition filed before the High Court (Appellant No.1) in this Civil Appeal) is Seedsman Association, Hyderabad. No details regarding the members of the Association have been given. The only fact stated in the affidavit is that the petitioner association is a society registered under the Societies Act formed for looking after the interests and welfare of the members who are organizing seed production and processing and marketing the seeds. No details of the activity being carried on by the members of the association have been given. The writ petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof is conspicuously silent about the nature and variety of the seeds allegedly being produced by them and the method or process being adopted in production of seeds. There is no averment that the seeds in which the members of the petitioner association are dealing have been certified by the Seeds Certification Agency of the State Government. The averment in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that it is from the date of sowing, the Breeder/Foundation seeds, the petitioners responsibility is to procure the seeds produced according to the procedure laid down in the Indian Minimum Seed Certification Standards, 1988, .... " is not only vague but also shows that the petitioners themselves do not produce seeds but they in fact procure seeds produced by someone else. Who is the producer of seeds and what steps have been taken by such producer to ensure the quality of the seeds is not disposed. Similarly, there is no clear averment that on account of application of insecticides or chemicals and poisonous substances, the basic character of the article, namely its consumption as food by human beings or animals is irretrievably lost and that such commodity is distinct from foodgrains.10. In view of the fact that the writ petition is very vague and necessary details of the commodity and the manner of its production in which the members of the writ petitioner no. 1 (Association) claim to be dealing have not been given, it is not possible to arrive at the necessary factual finding that the foodgrains meant to be utilised as seeds has irretrievably lost its basic character i.e. its consumption as food by human beings or animals or for extraction for the like purpose and that such processed seeds have become a commodity distinct from foodgrains as commonly understood. Similar is the case of the other connected appeals. It is, therefore, not possible to give any relief to the appellants in the present appeals.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. The writ petitioner no.1 in the writ petition filed before the High Court (Appellant No.1) in this Civil Appeal) is Seedsman Association, Hyderabad. No details regarding the members of the Association have been given. The only fact stated in the affidavit is that the petitioner association is a society registered under the Societies Act formed for looking after the interests and welfare of the members who are organizing seed production and processing and marketing the seeds. No details of the activity being carried on by the members of the association have been given. The writ petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof is conspicuously silent about the nature and variety of the seeds allegedly being produced by them and the method or process being adopted in production of seeds. There is no averment that the seeds in which the members of the petitioner association are dealing have been certified by the Seeds Certification Agency of the State Government. The averment in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that it is from the date of sowing, the Breeder/Foundation seeds, the petitioners responsibility is to procure the seeds produced according to the procedure laid down in the Indian Minimum Seed Certification Standards, 1988, .... " is not only vague but also shows that the petitioners themselves do not produce seeds but they in fact procure seeds produced by someone else. Who is the producer of seeds and what steps have been taken by such producer to ensure the quality of the seeds is not disposed. Similarly, there is no clear averment that on account of application of insecticides or chemicals and poisonous substances, the basic character of the article, namely its consumption as food by human beings or animals is irretrievably lost and that such commodity is distinct from foodgrains.10. In view of the fact that the writ petition is very vague and necessary details of the commodity and the manner of its production in which the members of the writ petitioner no. 1 (Association) claim to be dealing have not been given, it is not possible to arrive at the necessary factual finding that the foodgrains meant to be utilised as seeds has irretrievably lost its basic character i.e. its consumption as food by human beings or animals or for extraction for the like purpose and that such processed seeds have become a commodity distinct from foodgrains as commonly understood. Similar is the case of the other connected appeals. It is, therefore, not possible to give any relief to the appellants in the present appeals.