EXCEL CORP CARELTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these five writ applications the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.6.07 issued under the signature of Director Agriculture, Bihar, Patna whereby licences granted to the petitioners in Form No. VIII under Section 13 of the Insecticides Act bearing different licence numbers have been cancelled. All these writ applications were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) PETITIONERS are manufacturers of insecticides. All these petitioners have their manufacturing Units outside the territorial jurisdiction of the States of Bihar but their products are supplied and sold through dealers in the State of Bihar. The impuned order has been passed as one of the manufactured item of the petitioners were seized from the shop of one of the authorised dealer of the petitioners at one place, put petitioners' licences for sale, supply and exhibition for all products throughout the State of Bihar have been cancelled. The common grounds have been taken by all the petitioners for challenging the impugned order. The grounds are:

(3.) IN case of M/S Plant Remedies Private Ltd. (C.W.J.C. No. 7656/07) samples were collected from the business premises of its dealer at different places. In all cases the report was submitted after lapse of 60 days as required under Section 24(1) of the Insecticides Act. Similar is the case with M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. (C.W.J.C. No. 8030/07), M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mills (C.W.J.C. No. 8180/07) and M/s Indofil Chemicals Company. In all cases samples were collected by the Officers of the Agriculture Department end sent for analysis to the Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory (Chandigarh, Haryana or Kanpur. The test report should have been submitted in duplicate within 60 days to the Insecticides Inspector as per Section 24(1) of the Insecticides Act but in all cases after expiry of 60 days its samples were supplied to the Insecticides Analyst and thereafter the Insecticides Analyst sent it to the dealers from whose business premises the samples were taken. So far the petitioners, who are manufacturers are concerned they, have no knowledge that one of their products has been found sub -standard or misbranded. Petitioners' case is that they came to know about all these developments only after receipt of the order of the Director, dated 20.6.07.