THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.19254 of 2014 Dated : 23.07.2014 Between:
Pinnaka Venkateswara Rao, S/o Venkata Ratnam, 55 yrs., Cultivation, R/o T.Agraharam Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.
.. Petitioner And The Tobacco Board, Guntur, Rep. by its Secretary, Guntur Town, Guntur District and another.
.. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.19254 of 2014 ORDER :
The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land to an extent of 4.40 hectares and 4.60 hectares in Survey Nos.12/5, 23/5, 42/1, 42/2, 44 and 50 of T.Agraharam Village. The petitioner was granted grower registration. Under that registration, he owns two tobacco barns and he is raising and selling the tobacco. For the year 2013-14, his tobacco barn licence was renewed and he raised tobacco crop. The petitioner was served notice dated 08.04.2014 calling for his explanation as to why action should not be initiated against him for violation of the provisions of the Tobacco Board Act. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Having not satisfied with the said explanation, 1st respondent issued orders on 29.05.2014 cancelling the licence of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is instituted.
2. As seen from the impugned order in this writ petition, the licence granted to the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner illegally kept two barns without obtaining licence and therefore, he has violated the provisions of the Tobacco Board Act and the rules made thereunder. The petitioner also cultivated tobacco in excess of the area authorised by the Board. These violations are grave and warranted proper action. This Court cannot go into the merits of the decision taken by the competent authority. When power was validly exercised and violations noticed by the Board are serious. The provisions of the Act are intended to protect genuine farmers who produce tobacco. It is mandatory for licence holder to comply with the conditions of licence and violations thereof should result in penal consequence. Though right of revision was available to the petitioner, the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy provided to him and no reasons are assigned in the writ petition for not availing the statutory remedy.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to rectify the deficiencies pointed out and after rectifying the deficiencies, petitioner shall make a representation to the Board and such representation shall be considered sympathetically.
4. Learned Standing Counsel representing the Board submits that as per the orders of the Government of India, dated 24.06.2014 in case of sale of tobacco by an unauthorised grower, the Board is entitled to retain 15 per cent of the proceeds of the sale. He further submits that since licence of the petitioner was cancelled, the petitioner becomes unauthorised grower and therefore, liable to pay 15 per cent of the proceeds.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, the petitioner is permitted to sell the tobacco grown by him and from out of the proceeds, the respondent-Board is entitled to retain Rs.2 per kg and 15 per cent of the proceeds of the sale (including a normal service charge of 1 per cent of proceeds payable by growers). However, in case the petitioner rectifies the deficiencies pointed out and submits a representation seeking to refund excess proceeds retained by the Board, the Board may consider such request.
6. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date : 23.07.2014 ssp