RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) We have heard Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel representing the petitioner, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents and Sri Shafiq Mirza who has put in his appearance on behalf of U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited-respondent no. 3 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Agro"). Also perused the original records produced by District Agriculture Officer, Raebareli who is present before the Court pursuant to our order dated 23.10.2017/ 25.10.2017.
(2.) Petitioner company is manufacturer and supplier of fertilizers and is primarily aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the Chief General Manager (Marketing) of U.P. Agro, whereby, the petitioner has been blacklisted for making supplies of fertilizers in future.
(3.) The basic premise on which learned counsel representing the petitioner has proceeded to advance her arguments assailing the impugned order dated 22.02.2016 is that though the impugned order is based on alleged test report of the samples of the fertilizer supplied by the petitioner according to which the samples were found to be substandard, however, while collecting and analyzing the samples, the officers of the State Government have not followed the relevant procedures of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "Control Order"). It has also been forcefully submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is absolutely non speaking one which is based only on the report and the instructions of the State government and hence any order sans application of mind by the authority, who has passed the order, cannot be permitted to be sustained.;