IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.53093 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S NAVA BHARATH FERTILIZERS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (SALES) SRI.U.RAGHAVA RAO S/O.MOHANRAO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OFFICE AT: NO.179, 4TH FLOOR ROOPA COMPLEX, 1ST MAIN ROAD SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-560 020 … PETITIONER (BY MR.CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADV.- ABSENT) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE SESHADRI ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-560 103 4. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY & JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE (INPUTS), SESHADRI ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY Mis.NILOUFER AKBAAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS AND DECLARE THAT INTERFERING WITH THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANIC MANUR NAMELY PRESSMUD NAMELY VIJAYA GROWMIN AND BIO-PRODUCTS NAMELY VINZYME-G, VINZYME-L PLANT GROWTH PROMOTERS ETC. AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WITHOUT JUDISDICTION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
Mis.Niloufer Akber, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the reply filed by the petitioner on 15.10.2013, which has been submitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 23.09.2013.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned Government Advocate submitted that respondent No.3 shall consider the reply submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Since, a Bench of this Court had granted ad-interim order dated 10.12.2013 shall continue till the matter is adjudicated by respondent No.3 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS