ORDER
S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The challenge here is to the order of trial court directing the Chief Agricultural Officer, Patiala, to send the sample of the Insecticide 'BUTOCHLOR' taken from the plaintiff-Messers : Dharni New Zimindari Khad Store for analysis to the Central insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad.
2. Having been granted a licence for the purpose under the Insecticides Act 1968 (herein referred to as 'the Act'), the plaintiffs are dealing in the storage and sale of Insecticides and Pesticides. It appears, that on a sample of 'BUTOCHLOR' 50 per cent E.C. being marketed under the brand name 'POKLOR', being taken from the plaintiffs, for analysis, the report of the Insecticide Analyst received in respect of it showed that it contained 39.72 per cent E. C. instead of 50 percent. The Licensing Officer consequently served a notice upon the plaintiffs to show cause why the licence granted to them be not cancelled. The plaintiffs thereupon filed the present suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the State of Punjab from interferring in their business of storage and sale of insecticides and pesticides including 'BUTOCHLOR' 50 per cent E. C. 'POKLOR' brand. It was in this suit that on the application of the plaintiffs that one part of the sample lying with the Chief Agricultural Officer, Patiala, be sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory for analysis that the trial court so directed
3. A reference to the relevant provisions of the Act would show that under Section 14 thereof, the Licensing Officer is empowered to revoke the licence granted and any person aggrieved by such order may under Section 15, appeal against it to the appellate authority The Act, at the same time provides by Section 29 thereof for offences and punishments which can be imposed in respect of the manufacture, sale and storage of insecticides. Section 22 empowers Insecticides Inspectors to take samples of insecticides and send them for analysis to the Insecticide Analyst According to Sub section (6) of Section 22 of the Act the Insecticide Inspector, besides sending one part of the sample to the Insecticides Analyst, is also required to produce the second part of it before the Court where proceedings, if any, instituted in respect of the insecticides are pending and in terms of Section 24, where the person from whom the sample is taken indicates that he intends to adduce evidence to controvert the report of the Insecticide Analyst, the court may send such sample to the Central Insecticide Laboratory for analysis.
4. It will be seen, therefore, that the power to send a sample for analysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory vests in the court before which proceedings in respect of the sample are pending. The proceedings under Section 14 or 15 of the Act clearly do not answer to the description of being proceedings before a court. This being so, the trial court clearly fell in error in directing that one part of the sample be sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory for analysis.
5. The impugned order of the trial court cannot, therefore, be sustained and is consequently hereby set aside. This revision petition is thus accepted.