APHC010065492026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Wednesday, the Twenty Nineth day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 4462 of 2026 Between: M/s. Vasavi Traders ...Petitioner and The Assistant Director of Agriculture and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Haranadha Raju Katta Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Agriculture The Court made the following: 2 BSB,J W.P.No.4462 of 2026 ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ, order or writ of mandamus directing the respondents to quash the respective orders and proceedings, including penalty demand and blacklist status of the petitioner and issue consequential directions permitting the petitioner to continue his lawful business. 2. The case of the petitioner is, stated briefly, as follows: a. The petitioner is a registered retail dealer in fertilizers carrying on business under a licence and authorizations issued by the competent authorities. The respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice vide memo No. AGRI-FER/06/2024 TA(T3), dated 25.09.2024 under Section 22 of the Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1985 alleging some violations. The petitioner furnished an explanation to the show cause notice. Without considering the explanation, the department levied a penalty of Rs. 51,499.50/-. The amount of penalty was paid by the petitioner. Despite such payment, the respondents put the petitioner in a blacklist and rejected the petitioner’s application for inclusion in the Form-O category which is essential for fertilizer dealership. b. In spite of request made by the petitioner to remove its name from blacklist, no action has been taken. Since about September, 2024, the petitioner has not been permitted to do business. Hence, this writ petition was filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of blacklisting the petitioner for an indefinite period is illegal for non- consideration of the explanation and failure to give reasons. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Kulja Industries Limited 3 BSB,J W.P.No.4462 of 2026 Vs. Chief Gen. Manager W.T. Proj. B.S.N.L. & others1, wherein it was held at paragraphs Nos. 26 and 27 as follows: “26. The next question then is whether this Court ought to itself determine the time period for which the appellant should be blacklisted or remit the matter back to the authority to do so having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances. A remand back to the competent authority has appealed to us to be a more appropriate option than an order by which we may ourselves determine the period for which the appellant would remain blacklisted. We say so for two precise reasons. Firstly, because blacklisting is in the nature of penalty the quantum whereof is a matter that rests primarily with the authority competent to impose the same. In the realm of service jurisprudence this Court has no doubt cut short the agony of a delinquent employee in exceptional circumstances to prevent delay and further litigation by modifying the quantum of punishment but such considerations do not apply to a company engaged in a lucrative business like supply of optical fibre/HDPE pipes to BSNL. Secondly, because while determining the period for which the blacklisting should be effective the respondent-Corporation may for the sake of objectivity and transparency formulate broad guidelines to be followed in such cases. Different periods of debarment depending upon the gravity of the offences, violations and breaches may be prescribed by such guidelines. While, it may not be possible to exhaustively enumerate all types of offences and acts of misdemeanour, or violations of 1 Civil Appeal No.8944 of 2013, dated 04.10.2013. 4 BSB,J W.P.No.4462 of 2026 contractual obligations by a contractor, the respondent- Corporation may do so as far as possible to reduce if not totally eliminate arbitrariness in the exercise of the power vested in it and inspire confidence in the fairness of the order which the competent authority may pass against a defaulting contractor. 27. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and allow writ petition No.2289 of 2011 filed by the appellant but only to the extent that while the order blacklisting the appellant shall stand affirmed, the period for which such order remains operative shall be determined afresh by the competent authority on the basis of guidelines which the Corporation may formulate for that purpose. The needful shall be done by the Corporation and/or the competent authority expeditiously but not later than six months from today. The parties are left to bear their own costs.” 4. On 02.03.2026, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture placed on record a copy of written instructions of the respondent No.2 wherein it was stated that as follows: a. the petitioner was placed in top 20 urea buyers for the year 2024 for selling 43 bags (each 45 Kgs.) to a buyer Bandaru Venkata Narasayamma in Kasimkota Mandal and therefore, as per reference No. AGRI-FERT/6/2024-SA(T3), dated 16.04.2024, instructions were given to conduct an enquiry against the buyer and seller and during the enquiry it was found that Bandaru Venkata Narasayamma is not residing in Kasimkota Mandal and that she did not have agricultural land 5 BSB,J W.P.No.4462 of 2026 nor had she done agricultural work or purchased a single bag of urea from the petitioner. b. The petitioner admitted the mistake and agreed not to repeat the mistake and after enquiring about the value of the manipulated amount, the District Collector examined the information and imposed penalty of Rs.51,449.50/- and ordered the dealer to be blacklisted in I.F.M.S. as per note order dated 18.09.2024. c. As per the order of the District Collector, the District Agricultural Officer, Anakapalli, vide reference No. Agri-Fert/06/2024-TA(T3), dated 25.09.2024 directed the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Chodavaram to implement the order of the District Collector. Thus, as per the reference No. Roc. No. T/1/2024, dated 26.09.2024, a notice was issued to the petitioner that no fertilizer should be sold and all the wholesale dealers in the district were informed not to supply fertilizer to the petitioner. The order was implemented from 30.09.2024. d. The petitioner paid the fine and on 30.10.2024 sought permission to resume the business condoning the mistake which was undertaken not to be repeated. As per the reference No. 1466/2024/Magl.Cl, dated 11.11.2024, the District Revenue Officer, stated that the petitioner had submitted a representation to allow him to continue the business; and that vide reference No. Agri-Fert/06/2024-TA(T3), dated 30.12.2024, the District Agricultural Officer, Anakapalli addressed a letter to the District Revenue Officer, Anakapalli stating that the petitioner paid the penalty and requested that permission should be sought from the District Collector to allow him to continue the business. 6 BSB,J W.P.No.4462 of 2026 5. On 21.04.2024, a memo was filed by the respondents along with the docket note proceedings of the District Collector regarding the order blacklisting the petitioner. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture reiterated the contents of the written instructions and opposed the writ petition. 7. A perusal of the office note bearing No. 10 shows that it is a very cryptic order passed by the District Collector, Anakapalli, without considering the explanation / request of the petitioner. It reads as below: “since there is an intent to cheat the government to the tune of Rs. 51449.50 and the same shall be collected from the dealer as penalty. The dealer shall be black-listed and details may be uploaded in the I.F.M.S. portal.” 8. In pursuance of the above said order, the District Agricultural Officer, Anakapalli issued a memo dated 25.09.2024 which reads as follows: “…Ref: 1. No.10/JS(PS)/2020(PT) Gol, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Department of Fertilizers, dated 21.01.2021. 2. Lr.No.AGCO2-13022 (31) /44/ 2022-FER of Special Commissioner of Agriculture, A.P., Guntur, dated 05.10.2023. 3. List of top 20 urea buyers for the month of March, 2024 downloaded from www.dbtfert.nic.in web portal on 16.04.2024. 7 BSB,J W.P.No.4462 of 2026 4. RC.No.AGRI-Fert/47/2022 SA(T3) dated 16.04.2024 of the office of District Agricultural Officer, Anakapalli through mail to concerned ADAS & MAOS. 5. Preliminary enquiry reports submitted by the MAOs & Fertilizer Inspectors, Butchyyapeta dated 21.07.2024 & Kasimkota dated 24.07.2024. 6. Even No. dt. 26.07.2024 of this office. 7. Enquiry report of the A.D.A., Chodavaram dated 05.08.2024 & 09.08.2024. 8. Explanation given by the dealer M/s. Vasavi Traders, Vaddadi, Butchyyapeta, dated 21.07.2024, 05.08.2024 & 09.08.2024. 9. Note orders of the Collector & District Magistrate, Anakapalli District, dated 18.09.2024. It is to inform you that as per the enquiry reports received vide reference cited, the Retail Dealer M/s Vasavi Traders, Vaddadi, Butchyyapeta has erroneously used wrong biometrics of the buyer surfaced in Top 20 Urea Buyers for the month of March, 2024 for selling 43 bags (each of 43 Kg) of Urea. The buyer had denied any purchase of Urea from the said premises as she does not possess any cultivable land. The explanation offered by the retail dealer is not convincing and hence rejected. In view of the enquiry report, the Collector & District Magistrate, Anakapalli has issued orders against the dealer M/s Vasavi Traders, Vaddadi, Butchyyapeta with a penalty of 8 BSB,J W.P.No.4462 of 2026 Rs.51,449.50/- and the dealer should be placed in blacklist since there is an intent to cheat the government and violation of Clause-5a & Clause-35 of Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) Control Order, 1985. The orders should be implemented within 7 days on the receipt of this order and the penalty amount should be remitted to the following head of account: 1.0401-Crop Husbandry, 2. 800-Other Receipts, 3. 81-Other Items and to submit the challan to this office for uploading the same in IFMS portal through District Collector login. Hence, it is hereby instructed that the Assistant Director of Agriculture / Fertilizer Licensing Authority (R), Chodavaram, to take immediate action on implementation of the above orders and report compliance to this office.” 9. Thereafter, the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Chodavaram vide Roc. no. T/1/2024, dated 26.09.2024, passed the following order imposing penalty: “The explanation offered by the Retail Dealer M/s Vasavi Traders, Vaddidi, Butchiyyapeta is not convincing and hence rejected. After considering the facts in explanation, I, V. Ravindranadh, Asst., Director of Agriculture, Chodavaram and Notified Authority orders for a penalty for Rs.51,449.50/- (Rupees Fifty one thousand four hundred and forty nine and fifty paisa) against the dealer M/s Vasavi Traders, Vaddidi, Butchiyyapeta with instructions to remit the penalty amount to 9 BSB,J W.P.No.4462 of 2026 the Head of Account below and submit the challan to this office through the Fertilizer Inspector, Butchiyyapeta.” 10. Thus, the above order dated 26.09.2024, is limited to imposing penalty carrying out the order of the District Collector. Pursuant to the same order of the District Collector, no other / separate proceeding was issued blacklisting the petitioner. 11. The Fertilizer Inspector, Butchayyapeta Mandal vide proceedings dated 23.09.2025 returned the application of the petitioner for inclusion of Form-O in licence which reads as follows: “We acknowledge receipt of your application dated 12.09.2025 Received in this office on 14.9.2025 for inclusion of Form-O in your fertilizer licence. However, upon examination, we find that your licence is currently blacklisted. Reason for Return: As your licence is blacklisted without a specified period for revocation, and considering the gravity of the violation that led to this action, we are not in a position to recommend inclusion of Form O in your licence. The authority to consider revocation or modification of the blacklisting lies beyond our purview. Action Taken: In light of the above circumstances, we are returning your application. You may consider approaching the authority that imposed the blacklisting for necessary clarification or rectification. Enclosure: 10 BSB,J W.P.No.4462 of 2026 Your original application with attachments is enclosed herewith.” 12. Cumulative reading of the office note of the District Collector dated 18.09.2024 and the proceeding of the Fertilizer Inspector dated 23.09.2025 shows that the petitioner has been blacklisted for an indefinite period and moreover no proceeding was issued serving a copy to the petitioner. Except the office note of the District Collector, there is no other record available to blacklist the petitioner. 13. As is already noted above, the direction for imposition of penalty has been carried by issuing separate proceedings while no such step was taken to blacklist in spite of the direction in the memo dated 25.09.2024. 14. The memo dated 25.09.2024 has a reference in serial No.8 i.e., the explanations submitted by the petitioner on 21.07.2024, 05.08.2024 and 09.08.2024, but there is no reference or consideration of the explanations. Merely based on the admission of the petitioner’s mistake and prayer to condone the same and permit it to continue the business by paying the penalty, the intention to cheat the government was drawn and the dealer was completely blacklisted. 15. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Kulja Industries Limited (supra), imposition of severe penalty of blacklisting the petitioner for indefinite period is obviously harsh and illegal, being disproportionate to the admitted violation while already suffering payment of penalty. 16. As in the case before the Supreme Court, no rule in support of the impugned action of blacklisting for any period is placed before this Court by the respondents. The petitioner has already suffered from the 11 BSB,J W.P.No.4462 of 2026 impugned action since September, 2024 till now. The business of the petitioner is not as giant as in the case before the Supreme Court. For an ordinary business man, the period of loss of business as already suffered by the petitioner is more than the punishment required in the case of the present nature. 17. As such, the writ petition is disposed of treating the order of the District Collector dated 18.09.2024 blacklisting the petitioner, without indicating any period, as illegal from today i.e., the date of this order. Consequently, the request of the petitioner, if any, pending or if the petitioner submits a fresh application renewing his request for continuation of the business, shall forthwith be considered by the respondents. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 29.04.2026 Note: Issue C.C. by 04.05.2026 b/o NSM 12 BSB,J W.P.No.4462 of 2026 89 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 4462 of 2026 Dated: 29.04.2026 Note: Issue C.C. by 04.05.2026 b/o NSM