ORDER
Misra, J.
1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 4.4.97, passed by the Joint Director- Agriculture, by which he has disqualified the petitioner from selling insecticides in the State of Rajasthan on the ground that the product of the petitioner-firm is not properly branded and the compound used in the insecticides is not as per the norms fixed by the Department of Agriculture-Government of Rajasthan. This order was passed after a show cause notice was served on the petitioner, who although filed a reply, the same was not reckoned as it was treated time barred since on one occasion, an extension of 10 days time was already granted in favour of the petitioner to file such reply. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Director, Agriculture against the order passed by the Join! Director of Agriculture, but the same was dismissed not on merit but-only on account of the fact that the petitioner had failed to file reply within the prescribed time. The appellate authority thus did not apply his mind on the merits of the plea of the petitioner and hence, did not adjudicate on the question as to whether the insecticides sold by the petitioner-firm followed the technical norms and whether they were fit to be used. The petilioner being aggrieved with the order of the appellate authority, passed by the Director, Agriculture as also the order dated 4.4.1997 passed by the Joint Director, Agriculture has filed this writ petition assailing the aforesaid orders.
(2). Having heard the counsel for the parties, it is clear that the competent authorities of the Department of Agriculture have not really applied their mind to theactual merit of the plea raised by the petitioner and has dismissed the appeal only on account of the technical flaw that the petitioner had failed to avail the time granted for filing the reply and filed it beyond the prescribed time. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner, who was living in Madhya Pradesh had sent his reply by registered post within the prescribed time i.e. before 31st March, 1997 but the same could be delivered to the respondents only on the date when the order was passed i.e. on 4.4.97. It is thus obvious that the reply had reached to the authorities on the same day when the order was passed and it can safely be presumed that the reply was before the authorities on the date of passing the order. In such a situation it was expected of the respondents-authorities to deal with a case on merit in its letter & spirit, but instead of doing so, it was dismissed on a technical ground as already referred to hereinabove. The Officers, in my opinion, should have considered the reply filed by the petitioner specially when the reply filed by the petitioner had already reached them prior to the passing of the final order and the same could not have been ignored as if the time prescribed for filing the reply was akin to the law of limitation. Since the reply had reached before the authorities on the same date when the order was passed then the case ought to have been dealt with assigning reasons in what manner the sale of insecticides conducted by the petitioner's firm was not upto the mark so as to justify an order banning the sale of the articles.
(3). In view of this situation, I consider it appropriate to direct the Joint Director, Agriculture to pass a speaking order after considering the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice which had been received by them on 4.4.97 on which date the matter stood dismissed for a technical flaw. Since this writ petition is not a continuation of any appeal or proceeding pending before the Joint Director, Agriculture, the parties are directed to furnish all the relevant documents to the Joint Director, Agriculture in regard to the dispute between the parties. Thereafter, the Joint Director, Agriculture shall pass the order after considering the respective merit and de-merits of the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is open for the petitioner to approach the Joint Director, Agriculture for any interim relief which is required.
(4). The writ petition, in view of the aforesaid order, stands allowed.