APHC010031672022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the twenty The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Between: M/s. Surya Seeds Ltd. The State of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the petitioner: 1. K.V. Bhanu Prasad Counsel for the respondents: 1. Addl. Advocate General (A.P.) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) twenty fourth day of December two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi W.P. No: 2264 of 2022 ...Petitioner and tate of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondent etitioner: K.V. Bhanu Prasad espondents: Addl. Advocate General (A.P.) Court made the following: [3311] two thousand and Petitioner espondents 2 W.P.No.2264 of 2022 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondent No.3 in passing the impugned order in File No.AGCO2-12027 (31)/9/2020, dated. 04-01- 2022 and the consequential order passed by the respondent No.4 against the petitioner in Endt.No.Plg.V/376/2021, dated 05.01.2022 illegal, arbitrary, malafide, intentional and contrary to the provisions of the Seed Act, 1966 and consequently set-aside the same. 2. The case of the petitioner, is briefly, as follows: The petitioner is a registered company and has been doing business in variety of seeds, like marketing, manufacturing and storing, after obtaining seed licence from the competent authority and getting the licence renewed from time to time. The licence is renewed upto 07.03.2025. When the licence was renewed on 09.03.2020, the name of Sravana Lakshmi Seeds was mentioned. When the petitioner took up another premises for storage at Eluru, the same was duly reported to the licencing authority as required under law. The petitioner is required to inform the respondent No.3 from time to time about the varieties of the seeds with which it is doing business. When the petitioner informed the same, as usual, to the respondent No.3, the impugned order was passed. Earlier, when the licence of the petitioner was suspended on 20.08.2020 on the ground that the petitioner was carrying on business with B.T. cotton hybrid seeds not approved by the competent authority, G.E.A.C., the petitioner filed W.P.No.20475 of 2020. In the said writ petition, the question whether the petitioner is entitled to deal with B.T. cotton Cry1Ac & Cry2Ab fell for consideration. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 26.03.2021. The order was challenged in W.A.No.447 of 2021 by the respondents. The appeal is pending. There 3 W.P.No.2264 of 2022 is no interim order. Thus, the licence of the petitioner is restored. The petitioner is doing business. In the order in W.P.No.20475 of 2020, it was observed that the event M.O.N. 15985 had been deregulated by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in the proceeding dated 10.08.2017 and allowed the W.P.No.20475 of 2020 by setting aside the order suspending the licence of the petitioner. Thereafter, a writ appeal was filed. 3. In the impugned proceeding, it is stated that as per 83rd meeting of G.E.A.C. held on 02.04.2008, the Member Secretary, G.E.A.C. clarified that the de-regulation policy would be applicable to only B.T. cotton expressing four events and in the said events, event M.O.N. 15985 is also found, but, the petitioner earlier established that event M.O.N. 15985 was deregulated. Now, in the impugned order, it is stated that on 24.04.2017, task of hybrid approvals has been given to the I.C.A.R. for commercial release. Somehow, to overcome the order in the above W.P., the impugned order was passed by the respondent No.3 referring to certain proceedings and basing on the proceeding of the respondent No.3, dated 04.01.2022, the respondent No.4 passed the consequential order. G.E.A.C. is the approval authority. No other authority is competent to approve or prohibit any event. Contrary to the rules, even if any, clarification / memorandum is given, it is not valid. Therefore, the impugned proceeding to take action against the petitioner dealing with the approved event M.O.N. 15985 is illegal. The order of the respondent No.4 is liable to be set aside. The respondents Nos.3 to 5 are troubling the petitioner from doing business. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 4. The counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.3, is briefly, as follows: For granting seed licence to B.T. cotton, the competent authority is State Government under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, and the 4 W.P.No.2264 of 2022 petitioner has to submit the application to the State Government and he should enclose a copy of the approval certificate issued by the G.E.A.C.-I.C.A.R. for seed licence to produce and sell B.T. cotton. The G.E.A.C. is the competent authority for issuing approval certificate for B.T. cotton. The role of I.C.A.R. is to inspect whether the earlier approved scientific process is exactly followed or copied. The petitioner had not followed the scientific procedure or process and for the said reason, the petitioner is going away from producing approval certificate from G.E.A.C.-I.C.A.R. to the State Seeds Licencing Authority. The petitioner never stated that he secured approval certificate from the G.E.A.C.-I.C.A.R.. He did not plea that he obtained certificate from the G.E.A.C. The petitioner had not produced certificate from the G.E.A.C.- I.C.A.R. and as the order was passed in W.P.No.20475 of 2020 by this Court, the respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 14.09.2021 to the Additional Secretary and Chairperson G.E.A.C., Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Government of India, New Delhi seeking certain clarifications in the matter of deregulation. Thereafter, the said authority issued clarifications vide O.M. dated 01.11.2021. The petitioner secured earlier order by suppressing material facts regarding clarifications of the G.E.A.C. Apart from that, the petitioner is also dealing with other seeds i.e., other than B.T. cotton seeds. The event M.O.N. 15985 of B.T. cotton as claimed by the petitioner was approved to the extent for the original producer only viz., MONSANTO as bio-safe but not for the commercial release of each hybrid as produced from the said event. The allegation that the petitioner is subjected to trouble and harassment is false. In turn, the petitioner is harassing the poor farmers by producing G.M. seeds without following the conditions stipulated under O.M. dated 24.04.2017 and Rule 7 of G.S.R. 1037. The G.M. B.T. cotton seeds produced by the petitioner without the G.E.A.C.-I.C.A.R. commercial release 5 W.P.No.2264 of 2022 approval may harm the environment. Hence, the petition may be dismissed. 5. It is firstly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that I.C.A.R. has no role to play for approval of any seed variety and it is only the G.E.A.C. which is competent. It is nextly contended that the name of the variety of seed need not be mentioned in the format prescribed for grant of licence and it is sufficient to mention the name of the crop in the licence and the same was also held by this High Court dated 13.12.2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.25430 of 2020 till the form of licence is amended. It is further contended that consequently if the petitioner holds licence for cotton, the same cannot be objected on the ground that variety of cotton regarding approved event of B.T. cotton is not mentioned in the licence of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, it is vehemently contended by Ms.Jhansi Lakshmi K., the learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the Advocate General, A.P., that G.E.A.C. has assigned the job of verification of events under proper procedure and that the licence of the petitioner shall not only contain the name of the seed cotton, but also the name of seed ‘B.T. cotton’ separately, even though name of the variety of ‘cotton’ or ‘B.T. cotton’ seed is not required to be mentioned in the licence. She further submitted that the writ petition in W.P.No.25430 of 2020 is still pending and the order relied on by the petitioner is only an interim direction. It is also submitted that though the event is approved, unless it is examined that such approved variety is adopted by the dealer or manufacturer in the type of seed, a farmer using the seed may put to loss if the seed is not a good type and, therefore, before licence is granted, necessary tests are conducted. It is important to mention that she has drawn attention of this Court to the document filed by the petitioner with regard to the licence granted to M/s. MAHYCO Private Limited which contains names of the crop 6 W.P.No.2264 of 2022 separately for ‘cotton’ and ‘B.T. cotton’ and submitted that in the absence of specific mention of B.T. cotton in the column ‘name / crop’ in the licence in Statement III, the petitioner has no case. 7. In view of the above submissions and rival contentions, it is felt that the prime question is whether there must be separate licence for cotton and B.T. cotton showing them separately in the column ‘name of the crop’ in the licence. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the document filed by the petitioner itself, though belonging to another dealer, shows that licence was obtained separately for both types of crops. As such, the argument of the petitioner that crop ‘cotton’ includes ‘B.T. cotton’ cannot be accepted. Therefore, irrespective of the inclusion of the name of the variety of seed in the licence, without going into that controversy, it is found that the petitioner cannot agitate that under the licence, for cotton crop, it can also deal with ‘B.T. cotton’ is not acceptable. As such, this Court does not see any reason to set aside the impugned order. If the petitioner requires a licence, it may apply for the same, but cannot conduct the business in B.T. cotton seeds without there being a licence for it. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.24.12.2025 PNV