IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3498 OF 2025 Between: M/s. Sasya Agritech Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, M. Naresh S/o. M. Ramesh, Aged 30 years, R/o. D.No. 11-22-780 Warangal- 506 002, Telangana State. Factory at: D.No. 6-88 and 6-88/1, Sy.No.62, Pedda Amberpet Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District - 501 505, Telangana State. Office at: At Level-2, Oval Building, Plot No. 18, 1-Labs, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500 081, Telangana State. Sale point in AP at: D.No. 78/137/A, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool - 518 002, Andhra Pradesh Kashi Bugga ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary,Agriculture and Co-operation Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, State of Andhra Pradesh, Near Rythu Bazar, Chuttugunta, Guntur. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in interfering with sale and distribution of Bio-products/Bio- Vana Raksha, Vriksha,Stimulants of petitioner-Company, viz. Dhara, Aranya, Bloom Flower, Stompe Plus, Glynzer, Pyrate, Brofreya Dynamic, Shine Plus, Neem Oil Shakti, Extreme Pro, Pro Miracle, Sasya-12, Superior Plus, Stout-15, Sasya Supreme, Thrishul, E-Star, Paddy Special, Gladiator-24, Gorilla-34, Hulk-99, Flash Up, Sasya Tet, Sasya Gold, Sasya Derma, Vajram Pro, Lotus Gold, Sasya Corax, Karashak Plus, Scan, Indo Crop, Finisher, Grow Shakthi Plus, Humic Power, Super Police, Mortar Plus, Plant Power, Cotton Shakthi, Paddy Power, Caldan-5G, Agri Plus Suraksha, Maize Gold, Bhooraksha, Mirchi Plus, Mirchi Power, Tilt Power Missile Gold, Azotrix Rise, Amistar Premium, S- Kavach, Tiger Gold, Amaze Power, Evaze Pro, Proclaim Gold, Apex 100, Lorogen Super and Fertera Grow, by issuing Memo No. PP.11(1)2085/2005, dated 21-01-2006 and Letter No. PP.11(1)2085/2005, dated 21-01-2006 and in the absence of Notification prescribing standards and not included in Schedule-VIas being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and direct the 2 respondent not to interfere with in any manner in selling and distribution of Bio-products/Bio- Stimulants including from the licensed premises of the dealers/stockists under the In^cticides Act, 1968 and the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act, 1985 / lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere with sale and distribution of Bio-products / Bio-Stimulants of petitioner- Company, viz., Vana Raksha, Vriksha, Dhara, Aranya, Bloom Flower, Stompe Plus, Glynzer, Pyrate, Brofreya Dynamic, Shine Plus, Neem Oil Shakti, Extreme Pro, Pro Miracle, Sasya-12, Superior Plus, Stout-15, Sasya Supreme, Thrishul, E-Star, Paddy Special, Gladiator-24, Gorilla-34, Hulk-99, Flash Up, Sasya Tet, Sasya Gold, Sasya Derma, Vajram Pro, Lotus Gold, Sasya Corax, Karashak Plus, Scan, Indo Crop, Finisher, Grow Shakthi Plus, Humic Power, Super Police, Mortar Plus, Caldan-5G, Agri Plus, Plant Power, Cotton Shakthi, Paddy Power, Suraksha, Maize Gold, Bhooraksha, Mirchi Plus, Mirchi Power, Tilt Power, Missile Gold, Azotrix Rise, Amistar Premium, S-Kavach, Tiger Gold, Amaze Power, Evaze Pro, Proclaim Gold, Apex 100, Lorogen Super & Fertera Grow, including from the licensed premises of the dealers, stockists, under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Fertilizers Control (order) Act, 1985, Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. B V APARNA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following: ORDER: APHC010064712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3330] (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3498/2025 Between: M/s. Sasya Agritech Private Limited, AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.B V APARNA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR AGRICULTURE 2 f The Court made the following order:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- "...pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in interfering with sale and distribution of Bio products/Bio-Stimulants of petitioner-Company, viz. Vana Raksha, Vriksha, Dhara, Aranya, Bloom Flower, Stompe Plus, Glynzer, Pyrate, Brofreya Dynamic, Shine Plus, Neem OH Shakti, Extreme Pro, Pro Miracle, Sasya-12, Superior Plus, Stout-15, Sasya Supreme, Thrishul, E-Star, Paddy Special, Gladiator- 24, Gorilla-34, Hulk-99, Flash Up, Sasya Tet, Sasya Gold, Sasya Derma, Vajram Pro, Lotus Gold, Sasya Corax, Karashak Plus, Scan, Indo Crop, Finisher, Grow Shakthi Plus, Humic Power, Super Police, Mortar Plus, Caldan-5G, Agri Plus, Plant Power, Cotton Shakthi, Paddy Power, Suraksha, Maize Gold, Bhooraksha, Mirchi Plus, Mirchi Power, Tilt Power, Missile Gold, Azotrix Rise, Amistar Premium, S- Kavach, Tiger Gold, Amaze Power, Evaze Pro, Proclaim Gold, Apex 100, Lorogen Super and Fertera Grow, by issuing Memo No.PP.11(1)2085/2005, dated 21-01-2006 and Letter No.PP.11(1)2085/2005, dated 21-01-2006 and in the absence of Notification prescribing standards and not included in Schedule-VI as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and direct the 2^'^ respondent not to interfere with in any manner in selling and distribution of Bio-products/Bio- Stimulants including from the licensed premises of the dealers/stockists under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act, 1985 and pass such other order or orders....” i Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for 2. the respondents. j 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 26.07.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.13169 of 2021. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents did not refute the said submission. 5. In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition in terms of W.P.No.13169 of 2021, dated 26.07.2021. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order dated 26.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.13169 of 2021 to this order. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if shall stand closed. any. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principle Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Agriculture and Co operation Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, State of Andhra Pradesh, Near Rythu Bazar, Chuttugunta, Guntur. 3. One CC to SRI B V APARNA LAKSHMI Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR AGRICULTURE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] r 5. Three CD Copies Smb (Along with Copy of Order dated 26.07.2021 in WP. No. 13169/2021) "T HIGH COURT .1 •i \ \ I DATED; 11/02/2025 1 ■i ORDER WP.No.3498 of 2025 disposing the wp without costs ,r HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Writ Petition No.l3169 of 2021 Order: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the production, sale and distribution of petitioner's Bio- Products, as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner firm is that it has engaged in manufacture. sale and distribution of Bio-Products such as; James bond, More 69, Vinzyme-L, Vinzyme-G, Khazana, Supreme, Warrior, Victor, Victore Plus, Vajhara, Vijaya-99, Jeel-9, Vibha, Vishist, Dandi, Booster, Medal, Vijaya-999 and V. Prom 5, Vijaya CMS, Vejatha, CMS Grunavals, Vasudhaa, Dharani, Viraat CMS, Tejal, Bhairav, Dhaanya, Dharmavira, Dhaathri, Dhaarmik, Tejaswi, Sonakshi, Dhanishta, Daksh, Dhamman, Ekachakra, Ekaveera, Ekaveera plus, Garjan, Gandeer, Garuda, Jaagruth, Jaguar, Jamindar, Janzeer, Jeevan Mitra, Kanchan, Keerthi, Kingzymme (Liquit), Kingzymme (Granules), Mokshaa, Mothi, Pasidi-6, Terminator-ll, Terminator Plus, Tejas, Tejaswi, Temper, Saviour, Tejasplus, Heera, Sona, Eesha, Bhamini, Mohini, Bhaadra, Bahula, Janani, Jago, Bhaagya, Gayathree, Jeett, Ekalavya, Tejas Grand, Avenger, VAM-Gold Viswajit, Tejas Plus Extra, Secure, Gardian, Garjan, Visthaar, Prudhavi; the said products are called as plant growth promoters and Bio Organic Fertilizers, as the said products are manufactured without usage of any toxic chemicals unlike the regular pesticides and insecticides; they are naturally derived and used as crop stimulants and growth promoters and hence the said products will not fall under the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 or Insecticides Act, 1968; as the products of the petitioner do not fall under the ambit of either the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 or Insecticides Act, the same can be sold 2 Without there being any marketing permission under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and Insecticides Act; that in spite of the same, the respondents are obstructing the sale of the products; there is no prohibition on sticking dealers who were granted a license under Section 13 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 10 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and the District Agricultural Officers of Kurnool, Guntur, Krishna,'Chittoor, Anantapur, East Godavari, West Godavari and Kadapa are interfering and obstructing the business of the petitioner without assigning any reasons; the similarly situated firms filed W.P.No.25293 of 2014 and batch and after disposal of the said Writ Petition and batch on 10.07.2015, the matters were carried before the Division Bench by way of Writ Appeal Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016 and the said order was confirmed with certain modifications; hence, the Writ Petition. Writ Petition No.25293 of 2014 and batch were filed challenging the action of the respondents therein in interfering with the manufacture and sale of bio-products by issuing a memo dated 21.01.2006. substance of the said memo is that certain products are not covered under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the stocking/exhibiting for sale from the licensed premises is not permitted. Writ Petition No.25293 of 2014 and batch on The sum and were filed on the ground that when the activity is not covered by the provisions of the Act, the respondent authorities cannot interfere with the activities of the petitioners therein and the said Writ Petitions were disposed of with the following directions. "19. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: The petitioners shall not deal with bio-products without maintaining proper packing and marking of the product. The packing of bio-products shall contain the ingredients included in the product, analytical i) 3 procedure and their percentage. This enables the authority to verify the contents of the product. The manufacturer of every bio-product should intimate the concerned Commissioner of Agriculture with regard to the manufacturing activity undertaken by it with name of the product, process and its content. The Commissioner of Agriculture need not grant any permission and mere information from the manufacturer is enough for this purpose. The Commissioner of Agriculture shall issue an acknowledgement of such information. The dealer of bio-products should have the information with regard to the source of-purchase of bio-products and shall maintain a register for the said purpose in order to enable the authorities to inspect the stock from time to time. It is for the authorities to inspect the bio-products in the location of the manufacturer prior to its despatch to the dealer or in the location of the dealer and take sample thereof in order to verify whether any such product contains harmful substances attracting the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 or used as a fertilizer violating the provisions of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. The sample of the product shall be collected from the said sourpe by the authorities under the signature of the persons dealing with bio-products and the authority who is collecting for the purpose of sending it to the appropriate Laboratory in order to verify the contents of the said product. From a copy of the report if any prohibited substance is found by the authority, the authority shall issue a notice along with a copy of the report to the persons dealing with the product and take necessary action against such persons either under the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 or Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. After receipt of the explanation from the person. ii) iii). iv) V) 4 % the authority can pass appropriate orders under the provisions of the said enactments. The report from the concerned Laboratory shall be obtained as expeditiously as possible, preferably not later than a week from the date of collection of the sample and till such time, the concerned authority withhold manufacture and sale of bio product. Against the order passed by the authority who collected sample, the aggrieved party can file an appeal to the higher authority as provided in the above provisions if so advised. The collection of samples and the process of passing order shall not be resorted to routinely but should be on credible information that the product is causing damage to the public agriculture activity and on prima facie satisfaction of such information. The respondents shall not violate the law and resort to unnecessary harassment of the manufacturers dealers in a routine manner. In case of violation of the above directions, it is open to the petitioners to bring it to the notice of the higher authorities of the action of the officers violating the directions, and the higher authority to the authority interfering with the activity of the petitioners shall dispose of the representations with utmost expediency and not later than ten days from the receipt thereof. Vi) can vii) viii) or ix) Challenging the said order, the State Government has preferred Writ Appeals bearing W.A.Nos.ll22 and 1136 of 2016, which were disposed of by the Division Bench of the combined High Court on .03.11.2016, observing as follows. "As has been rightly held by the Learned Single Judge, the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India can only be restricted in accordance with Article 19(6) thereof. While the Act requires a licence to be obtained for storing and selling insecticides, no 5 provision, either in the Act or the Ruies made thereunder, has been brought to our notice which prohibit a licensee from selling other products, in addition to insecticides, in the very same premises. The impugned memo, whereby dealers were prohibited from stocking, exhibiting and selling bio-products not covered under the Act, from the premises for which a license has been granted under the Act and the Rules, is not authorised either by any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The fact, however, remains that though the guidelines, in the order under appeal, have been stipulated in the larger public interest of protecting farmers, some of the conditions prescribed therein appear to run contrary to the provisions of the Act. As the Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture has rightly pointed out Clause 6 of the guidelines, which requires a report from the concerned laboratory to be obtained not later than a week from the date of collection of the sample, does appear to fall foul of the time limit of one month specified in Section 21(l)(d) of the Act. Likewise Clause 7, which requires credible information to form the basis of collection of a sample, may well be construed as restricting the power, conferred under Section 21(l)(d) of the Act, on the Insecticide Inspector to withhold stocks if he has reason to believe that insecticides are being distributed, sold or used in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. While we are in complete agreement with the submission of Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner, that there cannot be an omnibus categorisation, of all bio-products as insecticides, for the purpose of taking-action under the Act, the grounds on which the Insecticide Inspector has reason to believe, that insecticides are being sold in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, would depend upon the facts of each case, and cannot be circumscribed by way of guidelines issued by this Court. The guidelines prescribed, in the order under appeal, can only supplement and not supplant the law, and would remain in force only‘till appropriate legislation - either plenary or subordinate - is made in this there cannot be as insecticides goods, to also regard. Suffice it, while making it clear that an omnibus categorisation of all bio-products for taking action against the dealers of those' make it clear that the guidelines, prescribed in the order under appeal, shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the powers conferred on the concerned authorities under the and the Rules. We may not be understood Act to have expressed any opinion on whether or not any of these bio-products insecticides. are as these are matters which the authorities concerned are required to examine in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules made thereunder, guidelines stipulated in the order under appeal. The order under appeal is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove, and the Writ'Appeals accordingly. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs." and the are disposed of Counter affidavit is filed by the second that the petitioner has not submitted respondent stating, inter alia, any bio-efficacy trial reports and results pertaining to non-toxicity and that the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India has issued a Gazette notification vide SO No.882(E), dated 23.02.2021, under Fertilizer (Inorganic, (Control) Amendment Order, 2021 duly Including the Bioslimulants I Schedule VI of Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985, The Division Bench of the combined High Court observed prescribed in the order under appeal would appropriate legislation - either plenary or subordihate - Organic or Mixed) in that the guidelines remain in force only till is made in that regard and pursuant to the said Division Bench order and to regulate the manufacturing and marketing of bio-products particularly with fake and bogus addresses and to prevent spurious products to the farmers the Agriculture & Cooperation (AGRI.III) Government issued G.O.Ms.No.l8, 7 Department, dated 10.03.2017 and sub-clause (4) of Clause 3 of the said SO No.882(E) reads as follows. "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this order, any person manufacturing a biostimulant as on the date of publication of this order for which no standards have been specified, may, subject to making an application for grant of provisional registration under sub-clause (5), continue to manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, stock or exhibit such biostimulant for a period of two years from the date of publication of this order." The said time limits were extended vide SO No.2333, dated 14.06.2021, which reads as follows. "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), the Central Government hereby makes the following order further to amend the Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985, namely:- (1) This order may be called the Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Amendment Order, 2021. (2) It shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. In the Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985,- (i) In clause 20(c), in sub-clause (5), for the words "within a period of six months from the date of publication of this order", the words, figure and letters "within 3P‘ March, 2022" shall be substituted, (ii) In 'Form G-3, for the words, figures and letters "up to....day of August, 2022", the words, figures and letters "up to 22"'* day of February, 2023" shall be substituted." 1. 2. In view of the categorical extension of time limits in SO No.2333, dated 14.06.2021, the respondents are directed to follow the provisions and the guidelines stipulated in SO No.882(E), dated 23.02.2021 and SO No.2333, 8 dated 14.06.2021, while dealing with the products of the petitioner and interfering with the activity of the petitioner who is dealing with the subject products. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. KONGARA VI3AYA LAKSHMI, J Date:26.07.2021 Nsr