A.K. Yog and R.K. Rastogi, JJ.
1. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, senior advocate assisted by Sri R. K. Pathak, advocate and Sri Bijendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate and Ms. Archana Srivastava, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5. Respondent No. 6 is not a necessary or proper party. This writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage without calling for counter-affidavit.
2. Vide para 9 of the writ petition, it is claimed that the petitioner (Pankaj Tiwari) obtained licence under the Seeds Act, 1966 for running a processing plant. There is no dispute that the said licence was obtained as required under the Seeds (Control Order, 1983. It is also not disputed that the licence was obtained under Clause 3 of the said Order, 1983 which requires dealers to obtain licence. It is also not disputed that under the aforesaid order the petitioner filed an application in the prescribed Form 'A'. Under Clause 7 of the said Form A there is a Note which reads 'Where the business of selling/exporting/importing seeds is intended to be carried on at more than one place, a separate licence should be obtained for each such place.' The petitioner has not filed even a copy of the said application and the licence No. 89/8819 dated 13.8.2004. The photostat copies of the same have been placed by Ms. Archana Srivastava, advocate appearing for the contesting respondents. Correctness of these photostat copies has not been challenged and we have no reason to doubt the genuineness and authenticity of these documents. Photo copy of the application shows that one Ashok Tiwari son of Sri Kamlakar Tiwari had filed the application before the District Agriculture Officer, Varanasi for obtaining licence on 11.8.2004. It is also to be noted that in the application signed by Sri Ashok Tiwari on 11.8.2004 he has categorically mentioned that the applicant wants to purchase and sell (i.e., carry on business) of food grains, Dalhan, Tilhan, all vegetable seeds and fodder seeds within the District of Varanasi. The photo copy of Form A placed before us further shows that there is no mention of any other place for carrying on business below the Note mentioned under Clause 7, Photo copy of the licence No. 89/8819 placed before us clearly indicates that the licence was granted to sell seeds within the District of Varanasi. The licensing authority, as per the aforesaid photostat copy, is the District Agriculture Officer, Varanasi.
3. Ms. Archana Srivastava advocate also pointed out that this writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of Pankaj Tiwari son of Sri K. K. Tiwari inasmuch as the licence was obtained by Sri Ashok Tiwari. Apart from it the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents also raised preliminary objection on the ground of equally efficacious alternative remedy by way of filing appeal under Clause 16 (b) of the Order, 1983 which provides that any person aggrieved by an order suspending or cancelling any licence may within sixty days from the date of the order, file appeal to such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf accompanied by fee of Rs. 50. We are informed that in the instant case, as per the notification dated July 4, 1985, the Director Agriculture U. P. is the appellate authority.
4. On behalf of the petitioner it is argued that the impugned order dated 5.11.2006 cancelling the licence (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the District Agriculture Officer, Varanasi is nullity inasmuch as the District Agriculture Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to cancel the licence as the authority conferred by means of the Government Notification dated 4.7.1985 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) has been revoked and superseded by means of Notification dated 7.12.1995 issued by the Government (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). The contention is that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and so the writ petition should not be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
5. We have carefully considered both the Government Notifications dated 4.7.1985 and 7.12.1995. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is not sustainable and the petitioner is estopped from raising such arguments. It is to be noted that the licence was obtained by Ashok Tiwari on 13.8.2004 from the District Agriculture Officer, Varanasi. If we accept the contention of the petitioner that the Notification dated 7.12.1995 revoked the power of the District Agriculture Officer after its Gazette notification whereby the Joint Director Agriculture (Seeds and Farms) U. P. was authorised for granting licence for the entire State of U. P. or for a part of it, then this licence issued by the District Agriculture Officer in favour of Ashok Tiwari itself was a nullity and it was without jurisdiction and so neither Ashok Tiwari nor the petitioner can claim any right on the basis of this licence.
6. Secondly, we find that the Notification dated 7.12.1995 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) in clear terms uses expression continuation (in Hindi, 'Kram'). This shows that the notification dated 4.7.1985 has not been revoked/ rescinded or superseded. A harmonious reading of aforesaid both the notifications dated 4.7.1985 and 7.12.1995 (Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition) shows that in case of licence to be issued for a particular District a person should apply for licence under Clause 3 of Order, 1983 to the District Agriculture Officer who is the licensing authority. In case a person wants licence as dealer of seeds under the aforesaid Order with respect to more than one district in a State or for the entire State, then in that case, the competent authority to grant such licence, as per the Government order dated 7.12.1995, is the Joint Director Agriculture (Seeds and Farms) U. P. We find no merit or force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the above interpretation shall render he 'Note' below Clause 7 of Order, 1983 redundant. We also find that there is no apprehension of double licensing authority and aforesaid two Government Notifications are not overlapping. They deal with different situations. Apparently the Government Notification dated 7.12.1995 vesting power in the Joint Director of Agriculture (Seeds and farms) U. P. for grant of licence with respect to entire State of U. P. is to ensure that the dealers are not required to obtain separate licence with respect to each district for carrying on business in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh and for that purpose there is one authority. Consequently, the Joint Director of Agriculture, U. P. has been authorised to issue licence under Clause 3 of Order, 1983 for the entire State of U. P. or for a part of it comprising more than one district. But when the licence is to be taken for one district only, the application shall lie to the District Agriculture Officer and not to the Joint Director Agriculture.
7. The Form 'B' attached to Order 1983 requires the applicant to disclose the place for storage and the place of sale which means that the concerned authority must have knowledge of full facts regarding place of business for purchases and sale of seeds to be monitored in such a manner as to ensure the maintenance of quality of seeds which is necessary and essential for obtaining the object of the Seeds Act.
8. Thirdly, we find that if we accept the contention of the petitioner namely that the Government Notification dated 4.7.1985 stood revoked after the Government Notification dated 7.12.1995 came into force, the same will create problem and inconvenience to large number of those seed dealers who may be interested to carry on business within one District alone. It may be noted that with respect to one district alone, it is the District Agriculture Officer who will be in a better position to deal with the subject apart from the fact that it will ensure smooth and expeditious disposal of the applications.
9. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, indicated above, and that the Government Notification dated 7.12.1995 itself clearly mentions that it is in continuation (in Hindi 'Kram') of earlier Notification dated 4.7.1985, there is no scope to dispute this legal position that with respect to one district, as in the instant case, it is the District Agriculture Officer who is the competent licensing authority and therefore the impugned order passed by the District Agriculture Officer does not suffer from infirmity of jurisdiction.
10. In view of above, the person aggrieved has got an efficacious alternative remedy by filing appeal under Clause 16 of The Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed without entering into the merit of the impugned order.
11. There will be no order as to costs.