Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010200662026 2026:GAU-AS:14163 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5169/2026 M/S MAA BEEJ BHANDAR AND ANR REPRESENTED BY ITS OWNER MINNAT ALI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, SITUATED AT VILLAGE GAGALMARI, P.S. MAYONG, DISTRICT MORIGAON, ASSAM 2: MINNAT ALI S/O LATE HACHEN ALI RESIDENT OF GAGALMARI P.S. MAYONG DISTRICT MORIGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE ASSAM DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-781022. 3:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22 4:THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER/ COMPETENT SEED INSPECTOR P.O. MORIGAON DIST MORIGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 PIN- 782105 5:THE VIGOUR BIOTECH PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 308 APOLLO PREMIER PLOT NO 1 PU4 COMMERCIAL SCH NO 54 INDORE 452010 MADHYA PRADESH INDIA 6:MR MAFIDUL ISLAM SALES MANAGER/ AUTHORIZED PERSON/ MANAGER OF VIGOUR BIOTECH PVT LTD R/O BALUGAON P.O. KHARUPETIAGHAT P.S. KHARUPETIA DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 78411 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T U LASKAR, MR. N HOQUE,MR. KHAIRUL ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AGRI. DEPARTMENT, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 23.09.2026 Heard Mr. T. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4. 2. The petitioner no. 1 is a proprietorship firm wherein the petitioner no. 2 is the proprietor. It is stated that the petitioner no. 1 is an authorized dealer/distributor of the respondent no. 5 to deal with maize seeds marketed by the respondent no. 5. One of the types of maize seeds is Hybrid Maize Seed Vigour-555 for which the petitioner no. 1 has been Page No.# 3/4 appointed as an authorized dealer/distributor by the respondent no. 5. It is further stated that in the Principal Authority Certificate [Annexure-A] issued in favour of the petitioner no. 1 firm by the respondent no. 5 on 30.06.2025, the maize seed of type Vigour-555 is mentioned as a non-notified authority. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners purchased 425 bags of Hybrid Maize Seed Vigour-555, each bag containing 4 kgs, as per an Invoice dated 29.08.2025 [Annexure- C]. The petitioners had thereafter, sold 75 percent of the purchased Hybrid Maize Seed Vigour-555 to small and marginal farmers of different villages. After sowing the Hybrid Maize Seed Vigour-555, several farmers started complaining about poor germination which had, in turn, resulted in monetary loss to the farmers. The petitioners were reported that germination of the seeds was only about 35% to 40%. 4. It is in such fact situation, the petitioners returned 25% of the unused stock of Hybrid Maize Seed Vigour-555, worth about Rs. 20,00,000/-, to the respondent no. 6, who is a Sales Manager of the respondent no. 5. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that complaining about poor germination of the seeds due to poor quality of Hybrid Maize Seed Vigour-555 sold to the petitioners by the respondent no. 5, the petitioners submitted a complaint before the respondent no. 4 on 13.08.2026. Raising a grievance that the respondent no. 4 has not acted upon the said complaint dated 13.08.2026, the petitioners are before this Court seeking inter alia a direction to the respondent nos. 2 to 5 to consider and act upon the petitioners’ complaint dated 13.08.2026 and to conduct investigation / inquiry concerning the Hybrid Maize Seed Vigour-555 supplied to the petitioners by the respondent no. 5, by collecting samples in accordance with Section 14 and Section 15 of the Seeds Act, 1966. 6. From the facts projected and the Principal Authority Certificate [Annexure-A], it can be seen that the petitioner no. 1 firm has been appointed as an authorized dealer / distributor of the respondent no. 5, which is a private company having license to carry on business of dealing in seeds. Page No.# 4/4 7. As per sub-section 2[c] of the Seeds [Control] Order, 1983, ‘dealer’ means a person carrying a business of selling exporting or importing seeds and includes e-marketer and an agent of a dealer and e-marketer. As per sub-section [1] of Section 3, no person shall carry on the business of selling, exporting or importing seeds at any place except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license granted to him under the Seeds [Control] Order. 8. As per the License issued to the respondent no. 5, annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-B, the License is subject to the provisions of Seeds [Control] Order, 1983. By the License dated 21.03.2024 [Annexure-B], the respondent no. 5 has been authorized to carry on business as a licensee to sell, export/import and or store the list of seeds at and from the specific place of Balugaon, District – Darrang. The petitioners are from the district of Morigaon. The respondent no. 5 as such Licencee has not been authorized to appoint any authorized dealer or distributor under the Seeds [Control] Order, 1983. The relationship between the petitioner farm and the respondent no. 5, which is a licencee under the Seeds [Control] Order, 1983, can at best be of an agent and the dealer. Therefore, their relationship is governed by law of agency. 9. Having found no public law element involved in this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant