1 2025:CGHC:12133 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1315 of 2025 1 - M/s Ramdev Tradelinkes Through Partner Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jain, S/o Late Kanwar Lal Jain, Age 48 Years, R/o Aarkachhepda Para, Kondagaon, Tehsil And District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Agriculture Block- I I, 2nd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint-Director Department Of Agriculture, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.03.12 22:08:04 +0530 2 4 - Deputy-Director Department Of Agriculture, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Siddharth Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 11.03.2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is questioning the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the respondent no. 4 by which the authorization letter No. 163 dated 08.06.2023 issued to the petitioner for retail business of fertilizer has been cancelled under Clause 31(1) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 (for short , ‘the Order 1985’)in violation of principles of natural justice as well as the appellate order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3, who has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Clause 31(1) is very specific that before cancelling or suspending the authorization letter/certificate, the principles of natural justice has to be followed and without any opportunity of hearing the said authorization letter cannot be cancelled or suspended. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent State submit on instruction that before the issuance of the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 by communication dated 12.08.2024 and 11.09.2024, the petitioner was asked to provide necessary information to the complaint made 3 by the complainant. He further submits that the communication dated 12.08.2024 and 11.09.2024 has been annexed in the writ petition itself by the petitioner as Annexure P/2, it means that before passing of the order dated 20.01.2025 the petitioner was afforded sufÏcient opportunity to explain the complaint, however, the petitioner failed to do so and hence the order passed by the respondent authority Deputy Director (Agriculture) is just and proper and there is no illegality at all. In fact, the order has been passed in accordance with Clause 31 (1) of the Order, 1985. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the order Annexure P/3 dated 20.01.2025 and also perused the provision prescribed under Clause 31 (1) of the Order, 1985. 5. For the sake of convenience, it would be apt to quote clause 31(1) of the Order, 1985, which read as under : 31. Suspension, cancellation or debarment.--(1)A notified authority, registering authority, or as the case may be, the Controller may, after giving the authorized dealer or the holder of certificate of registration or certificate of manufacture or any other certificate granted under this order, an opportunity of being heard, suspends such authorization letter or certificate or debar the dealer from carrying on the business of fertilizer on one or more of the following grounds, namely:-- a) that the authorisation letter or certificate of registration or certificate of manufacture, as the case may be, has been obtained by wilful suppression of material facts or by misrepresentation of relevant particulars; (b) that any of the provisions of this Order or any terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Intimation or certificate of registration or the certificate of manufacture, as the case may be, has been contravened or not fulfilled: Provided that while debarring from carrying on the business of 4 fertiliser or cancelling the certificate, the dealer or the certificate holder thereof may be allowed for a period of thirty days to dispose of the balance stock of fertilisers, if any, held by him: Provided further that the stock of fertiliser lying with the dealer after the expiry of the said period of thirty days shall be confiscated. xxx xxx xxx 6. Bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is manifest that Clause 31(1) provides that before cancelling, suspending or debarring a dealer an opportunity of being heard is necessary, however, in the present case though the respondents have asked the petitioner to provide information in response to the complaint but the opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. It appears from the order itself that before issuance of the order dated 20.01.2025, by which the authorization letter has been cancelled, the principles of natural justice has not been observed neither any show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, hence the impugned order is contrary to the provision of Clause 31 (1) of the Order, 1985. 7. It is noteworthy to mention here that the requirement that a reasonable ‘opportunity of being heard’ (also known as audi alteram partem) must be given has two elements: the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise. 8. In view of foregoing, the impugned order Annexure P/3, 20.01.2025 and the appellate order dated 28.02.2025 are hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent to take 5 appropriate steps, against the petitioner, in accordance with the provision enshrined under Clause 31 (1) of the Order, 1985, if so desire. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib