IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.52392 OF 2019 (GM RES) BETWEEN:
M/s. Biostadt India Limited Poonam Chambers, A-Wing, 6th Floor, Dr. A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Maharastra.
Represented by its Authorised Representative, Mr. Vadiraj Ashtaputre, (By Sri. Sangamesh R.B., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, Department of Agriculture Rep. by Secretary, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru-01.
2. The Director, Department of Agriculture, Sheshadri Road, ... Petitioner Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru-01.
3. Office of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru-01.
4. Insecticide Inspector And Agriculture Officer, Department of Agriculture Bengaluru District, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru-01.
(By Sri. K.Dilip Kumar, HCGP) ... Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents not to interfere with the manufacture stocking, distribution and sales of the bio/natural products manufactured/packed and distributed/sold by the petitioner and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. The petitioner in the above writ petition sought for writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the manufacture, stocking, distribution and sales of the Bio/Natural Products manufactured/packed and distributed/sold by the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the manufacturer and packaging agent of Bio Natural products having sales in Karnataka. The Bio Natural products which are not coming within the purview of the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 as the substance used for the manufacture of these products are not falling within the substance under the provisions of the said Act. The respondents who are acting under the Government are not only interfering with the sales of the products by the petitioner, and also on the guise of the impugned circular dated 28.08.2013 they are harassing the production and sale of products in the state of Karnataka. Being aggrieved by the said interference, some of the petitioners who are manufacturing and selling the products have approached this Court and this Court in an identical circumstances in the case of M/s Rigved Scientific Organics vs. State of Karnataka made in W.P.No.42736/2019 (GM-RES) dated 17.09.2019 granted the relief sought for with liberty to take action against the petitioner therein if any violation of the contravention of the Insecticides Act. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri Sangamesh R.B., learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition has contended that by taking advantage of the circular dated 28.08.2013, the respondents are trying to interfere in the manufacture and sales of natural/Bio products of the petitioner which is unconstitutional and the respondents have no jurisdiction to prohibit the manufacture and sale of Bio Natural products by insisting license, since the products manufactured by the petitioner do not cover under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and they have no locus-standi to issue the impugned circular. Therefore he sought to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, Sri K. Dilip Kumar, HCGP on taking notice for the respondents submits that if the products manufactured and sold by the petitioner are not covered within the purview of the provision of Insecticides Act, 1968, the respondents will not interfere and in the guise of the manufacture of the products alleged by the petitioner any contravention of the provisions of Insecticides Act, it is always open for the respondents to proceed against them after following the procedure in accordance with law. Said submission is placed on record.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner who is a manufacturing and packaging agent of Bio Natural products having sales in the state of Karnataka and the said products are not covered within the purview of the Insecticides Act, 1968. If the petitioner has not violated the provisions of Insecticides Act, the respondent cannot interfere with the manufacturing, stocking and sales of Bio Natural products by the petitioners in accordance with law.
8. If the petitioner proceed with the production of Bio Natural products, no action can be taken against the petitioner, unless the petitioner violates the provisions of the Insecticides Act. Otherwise the respondent cannot interfere with the day to day business of the petitioner.
9. In view of the above, writ petition is disposed off directing the respondents not to interfere with the manufacture, stocking, distribution and sales of Bio Natural products sold by the petitioner as per the schedule in the present writ petition. However, it is needless to observe that it is always open for the respondents/appropriate authorities to take action against the petitioner in case of any contraventions of the provisions of the Insecticides Act by the petitioner after following procedure and in accordance with law.
With these observations writ petition is disposed off.
SD/- JUDGE sd