IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 114 CWP-10851-2026 Date of Decision: 05.05.2026 M/S GENCREST BIO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LTD. ...Petitioner Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate (through V.C.) for the petitioner Mr. Deepak Vashisht, DAG Haryana (assisted by Mr. Amit, ADO, Agriculture Department) *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 25.02.2026 whereby respondent No.1-Joint Director-cum-Designated Authority, Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Haryana has rejected its application filed under Clause 28B(3) of the Fertiliser [Inorganic, Organic or Mixed] (Control) Order, 1985 (for short ‘1985 Order’) seeking re-analysis of third sample of Fertiliser Zinc Oxide Suspension Concentrate 39.5% bearing code No. JH/QCI/2025/F-50 (for short ‘Fertiliser’). It is further seeking direction to respondents to send third sample of fertiliser for re-analysis. 2. The petitioner is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of fertilisers and chemicals. It is registered with the DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.06 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10851-2026 -2- Department of Agriculture, Haryana. It was issued certificate on 15.05.2024 by Notified Authority-cum-Director General, Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Haryana. Respondent No.3-Fertiliser Inspector, Jhajjar on 12.11.2025 drew sample of fertiliser namely Zinc Oxide Suspension Concentrate 39.5% bearing batch No. ZOX/25/002 and Code No. JH/QCI/2025/F-50 from the premises of M/s Bhaichara Kisan Agro, front of HDFC Bank, Matanhail, Jhajjar. Three sets of the sample were prepared. One sample was sent for analysis to Senior Analyst, Quality Control Lab Fertiliser, Karnal on 17.11.2025 vide office letter No.7996 who vide letter No.909/TR dated 01.12.2025 sent analysis report observing that the fertiliser is not in accordance with specifications and is ‘non-standard’. Respondent No.2-Notified Authority-cum-Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Haryana issued show cause notice dated 19.12.2025 calling upon the petitioner to produce documents and refrain from selling balance non-standard fertilizer. The petitioner was granted opportunity to seek retesting within 15 days. As per petitioner, the above-mentioned show cause notice was served at its manufacturing plant and not at its head office. It submitted letter dated 16.01.2026 seeking re-analysis of the sample which has been dismissed by respondent-Authority vide order dated 25.02.2026 on the ground that it was not submitted within stipulated period i.e. 15 days as per clause 28B(3) of 1985 Order. 3. Learned State counsel submits that as per Clause 28B(3) of 1985 Order, in case sample is reported as non-standard a dealer or a manufacturer may apply for retesting within 15 days from the receipt of DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.06 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10851-2026 -3- test report. The petitioner was sent report vide communication dated 19.12.2025. The petitioner was also sent notice through email on 22.12.2025, thus, was supposed to file appeal within 15 days from 22.12.2025. The petitioner has not further deposited requisite fee. 4. On being asked, learned State counsel points out that requisite fee is Rs.4,720/-. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid fee would be deposited within three days from today. 6. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 7. From the perusal of record, it is evident that respondent drew sample of fertiliser from petitioner’s dealer on 12.11.2025. The sample was drawn in triplicate. One copy was handed over to dealer and another was kept in the office of respondent. Third copy was sent to State Laboratory. As per test report dated 17.11.2025, material is ‘non- standard’. The petitioner was sent notice with respect to test report. The petitioner as per Clause 28B(3) of Fertiliser Control Order could apply for retesting. The petitioner was supposed to make request for retesting within 15 days. It was also required to deposit prescribed fee. The petitioner made request for retesting on 16.01.2026 and its request was received by respondent on 19.01.2026. As per petitioner, it was unaware about drawing of sample and test report. Contention of petitioner does not seem to be appealable, nevertheless, matter deserves to be examined in the light of factual and legal position. 8. The petitioner was issued notice on 19.12.2025 and it was sent through post. As per respondent, notice was also sent to petitioner DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.06 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10851-2026 -4- through email dated 22.12.2025 and it could avail remedy of retesting within 15 days from 22.12.2025. The petitioner filed request for retesting on 16.01.2026 and it was received on 19.01.2026. Clause 28B deals with drawing of samples which reads as:- “28 B. Sample drawn by the Inspector (1) Out of the three samples collected by the Fertiliser Inspectors, one sample shall be given to the dealer or importer or manufacturer or pool handling agency or marketer, as the case may be and the second sample shall be sent to the in-charge of the laboratory notified under item (b) of sub- clause (1) of clause 29 and the third sample shall be kept in the custody of designated authority. (2) In case the sample shall be drawn by the Fertiliser Inspector of the Central Government or by the State Fertiliser Inspector during joint inspection, out of three samples, one sample shall be given to the dealer or importer or manufacturer or pool handling agency or marketer, as the case may be, and the second sample shall be sent for analysis through the Central Coding Centre to any of the Regional Fertiliser Quality Control Laboratory at Chennai, Mumbai or Kalyani and the third sample shall be kept in the custody of the In-charge of such Central Coding Centre. (3) In case the sample is reported as non-standard then within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of the report, the dealer or manufacturer or importer or pool handling agency or marketer, as the case may be, shall apply to the designated authority appointed by the State Government under clause 28 A of the said Order or to the in charge of the Central Coding Centre in case where the sample is drawn by the Central fertiliser Inspector for re-testing along with the DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.06 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10851-2026 -5- prescribed fee and the sample provided to him by the Fertiliser Inspector. (4) The designated authority of the State Government or the in charge Central Coding Centre of the Central Government, as the case may be, shall immediately send any of the two samples that is one submitted by the dealer or manufacturer or pool handling agency or importer or marketer and other lying in its custody to the National Test House, Ghaziabad Coding centre for testing at any of its Centre at Kolkata, Mumbai, Chennai, Jaipur and Ghaziabad for second analysis. (5) The report of National Test House shall be treated as final and in case there is variance in first and second analysis report that is the sample reported as non- standard in different parameters, then the designated authority of state Government or the In-charge of Coding Centre, as the case may be, shall suo motto send the sample lying in their possession for third analysis at Central Fertiliser Quality Control and Training Institute, Faridabad and the analysis report of such Institute shall be treated as final: Provided that in case where the dealer or manufacturer or pool handling agency, as the case may be, does not apply within the stipulated period of fifteen days under sub-clause (3) of clause 28B, then the report of first analysis shall be final: Provided further that in case where the sample reports that is first analysis report and second analysis report are declared as nonstandard in a common parameter, in such case, there shall not any third analysis and the report of the second analysis shall be treated as final.” [Emphasis supplied] DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.06 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10851-2026 -6- 9. From the perusal of sub-clause (3) of aforesaid clause, it is evident that a dealer or manufacturer within 15 days from the receipt of adverse report may apply to the designated authority for retesting. As per respondent, 15 days period prescribed under said clause is sacrosanct and mandatory. It cannot be varied. Stand of respondent does not seem to be plausible. Claim of the respondent that 15 days period prescribed in the sub-clause (3) is mandatory is based upon expression “shall” used in the said clause. A plain reading of the said Clause, in the manner as suggested by respondents, reveals that in case sample is reported as non- standard, dealer or manufacturer or importer is bound to apply for retesting. The expression “shall” is not followed by “within a period of 15 days” whereas “shall" is followed by "apply to designated authority”. It cannot be intention of the Legislature. Right to file appeal or apply for retesting is absolute discretion of the aggrieved party, thus, Legislature in every enactment has prescribed limitation period, however, expression “may” has been used. This may be understood with the help of Clause 32A. As per said Clause, any person feeling aggrieved from order or action of registering authority may file appeal within 30 days. Clause 32A reads as:- “32A. Appeal at the State Government level (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such authority as the Appellate Authority before whom the appeals may be filed within 30 days from the date of the order appealed against by any person, except by an industrial dealer, aggrieved by any of the following Orders or action of registering authority or a Notified Authority, namely:- DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.06 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10851-2026 -7- (i) refusing to grant a certificate of manufacture for preparation of mixture of fertilisers or special mixture of fertilizers; or (ii) suspending or cancelling a certificate of manufacture; or (iii) suspending or cancelling authorization letter or debarring from carrying on the business of selling of fertilizer; or (iv) non-issuance of [xxx] certificate of manufacture within the stipulated period; or (v) non-issuance of amendment in authorisation letter within the stipulated period.” In the backdrop, Clause 28B(3) cannot read in the manner as suggested by respondents. It is settled law that expression “shall” in appropriate circumstances and having regard to the context, may be read as directory instead of mandatory. The provision further deserves to be interpreted in the light of facts and circumstances of the case. Retesting is a substantive-cum- procedural provision. It is substantive because it creates right in favour of dealer/manufacturer to seek retesting in case test report is found adverse. It is procedural because it prescribes authority to whom application has to be filed and the period within which application should be filed. The adverse report entails prosecution. Criminal liability stems from adverse report, thus, dealer must be given full reasonable opportunity to put forth his stand. To avoid possibility of mis-reporting and dispel doubt, dealer/manufacturer has been granted opportunity to seek retesting. The said right ought not to be curtailed on the ground of delay and that too of few days. The limitation period prescribed in the DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.06 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10851-2026 -8- said clause needs to be interpreted liberally. In the present case, petitioner within less than 30 days from the date of receipt of test report applied for retesting. Delay, if any, was not more than 15 days. The said period of delay should not be made basis to curtail vested right of the dealer/manufacturer to seek retesting especially when first report is creating civil as well as criminal liability. Needless to mention here that this Court has not held that dealer/manufacturer under Clause 28B(3) may apply for retesting at any point of time. 10. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned order (Annexure P-6) deserves to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to send available sample for retesting. The petitioner shall deposit requisite fee within three days from today. The authorities would not proceed against petitioner without receipt of retesting report. The petitioner shall not sell balance stock of batch in question till the receipt of fresh report or 30.06.2026 whichever is earlier. 11. Allowed in above terms. 12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE May 05, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.06 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document