1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No.3403 of 2018
------
Ram Lagan Thakur, aged about 41 years, son of Sri Ram Chandra Thakur,
Proprietor M/s Amba Seeds, resident of Quarter No.546, Chutia, P.O.
Chutia, P.S. Chutia, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
…… Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The District Agriculture Officer, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Ranchi, District
Ranchi.
4. The Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Ranchi,
District- Ranchi.
…… Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Trivedi, Advocate
: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Trivedi, Advocate
: Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Chandra G.A. Bardhan, S.C.-II
----------------------------
th
05/Dated 16 August, 2019

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

whereby and whereunder the order dated 31.05.2017 as contained under
Memo No.892 issued by the District Agriculture Officer, Ranchi, by which,
license issued in favour of the petitioner bearing Seed License No.214/2015-
18, has been suspended on the ground of commission of irregularities to the
effect that certain forged and expired seeds as also plain wrappers have been
found in the seed godown which resulted into institution of FIR as also the
suspension of license.

2. The petitioner being aggrieved with the part of the order dated
31.05.2017, by which, the license No.214/2015-18 has been suspended hence,
before this Court.

3. This Court has examined the statutory provision as contained Seeds

(Control) Order, 1983 wherein the power of suspension/cancellation of license
has been provided under Order 15 which reads hereunder as:

15. Suspension/cancellation of license.—The licensing

authority may after giving the holder of the licence an
 2

opportunity of being heard, suspended, or cancel the licence on

the following grounds:--
(a) that the licence had been obtained by misrepresentation as
to a material particular; or
(b) that any of the provisions of this Order or any condition of
licence has been contravened;

It is evident therefrom that the licensing authority can suspend or cancel

the licence on the following reasons i.e. (a) licence has been obtained by
misrepresentation as to a material particular or; (b) any of the provisions of
this Order or any of licence has been contravened;

The aforesaid provision does reflect that if any of the condition

stipulated under Order 15 would be found to be available the licence can be
suspended or cancelled but after giving the holder of the licence an
opportunity of being heard.

4. This Court has examined the order of suspension of the licence in view
of the said statutory provision. Mr. Chandra G.A. Bardhan, learned S.C.-II
appearing for the State of Jharkhand, has submitted that the in detail counter
affidavit has been filed but he in all fairness has submitted that the fact about
giving the holder of the licence and opportunity of being heard prior to the
order of suspension, has not mentioned in any paragraph to that effect.

He further submits by going through the impugned order that the order
of suspension of the licence since to have been passed without give the holder
of licence the opportunity of being heard.

Further submits by taking aid of order 16 of the Seeds (Control) Order,

1983 wherein the provision of appeal has been provided even the appeal can
be filed against the cancellation of licence before the appellate authority and
therefore, he submits that the petitioner has got remedy of appeal and hence
the writ petition may not be entertained.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties before entering into the
merit of the issues, this Court deem it fit and proper first to answer the question
pertaining to entertain the instant writ petition on the ground of availability of
remedy of appeal as provided under Order 16 of the Seeds (Control) Order,
1983.
It is not in dispute that the Article 226 of the Constitution of India
 3

provides remedy to the citizen of the country to invoke the jurisdiction as

provided therein by filing a petition before the High Court or Supreme Court
in case of infringement of the fundamental right.

It is further evident that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

there is no embargo upon the High Court or Supreme Court to entertain a writ
petition even in case of availability of alternative remedy and i.e. due to the
reason that Article 226 is having with extraordinary power and if the High
Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, will not entertain the writ
petition that will ultimately touch the basic structure of the Constitution of
India but the question pertaining to availability of alternative remedy, has also
been taken care of by the Hon’ble Apex Court it is for the reason that when
the statute provide the alternative remedy of appeal or revision, the said
provision cannot be given go-by and hence the issue fell for consideration
before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs.
Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has pleased to lay down the parameters to
entertain the writ petition even in case of availability of alternative remedy of
appeal or revision and by carving out exception to that effect that if there is
violation of principle of natural justice or any decision taken by the authority
is not in consonance with the statutory provision or if there is any infringement
of the fundamental right. Recently also the Hon’ble Apex Court decided in the
case of Maharashtra Chess Association Vrs. Union of India & Ors. reported
in 2019 SCC Online SC 932, has laid down merely on the ground of
alternative remedy a writ petition cannot be thrown up and if the High Court
is thronging out the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative
remedy, the cogent reason is to be assigned by the High Court. This Court has
examined the case in hand on the basis of the aforesaid legal position.

6. It is evident from the impugned order that the same is having two effect
on the alleged ground of plain wrappers, forged, the Seeds having been with
the expiry date and duplicate which resulted into two consequences first is the
institution of FIR against the petitioner and second the suspension of licence.
So far as the consequence of the criminal case the same would take its own
course since the same is to be decided by the competent court of criminal
jurisdiction but so far as the suspension of licence is concerned, the same is to
 4

be governed by the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.

7. So far as the suspension of the Seeds licence the provision has been
made under Order 15 as referred hereinabove which provides that before
suspension or cancellation of licence the opportunity of hearing is to be
provided to the licensee as would appear from the impugned order dated
31.05.2017 as also by going through the stand taken by the State in the counter
affidavit, this Court has come to the finding that before suspension of the
licence the requirement as stipulated under Order 15 to the effect that an
opportunity of hearing is to be provided to the licencee, has not been followed.

8. It is further settled position of law that it is incumbent upon the authority

in exercise of their administrative power to follow the statutory provision and
as such the District Agriculture Officer, Ranchi while passing an order of
suspension of licence ought to have taken into consideration the provision of
Order 15 of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and the suspension order ought
to have been passed strictly in terms thereof, but this Court has found that
before suspension of the licence the opportunity of hearing has not been
provided to the petitioner, therefore, the suspension of licence as has been
passed vide order dated 31.05.2017, cannot be held to be in consonance with
the statutory provision as contained under Order 15 to the Seeds (Control)
Order, 1983, therefore, the same is being held to be not sustainable in the eye
of law, accordingly, quashed.

9. It is further settled position of law that on technicality nobody can be

allowed to take the advantage, therefore, this Court is of the view that the
matter requires afresh consideration by the District Agriculture Officer,
Ranchi by taking decision afresh after following the statutory provision as
contained under Order 15 to the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.

10. The District Agriculture Officer, Ranchi is directed to issue show cause
within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order by stipulating
therein specific time and making reference of the irregularities said to have
been committed by giving a specific time framed to the petitioner to make a
response of the same.

11. The petitioner immediately after receipt of the same, shall submit his
 5

reply within time stipulated.

12. The concerned authority shall take decision in accordance with law
after three weeks from the date of receipt of such response by passing a
speaking order.

13. It is made clear that if the petitioner will not respond to the said show
cause, the authority will be at liberty to pass an appropriate order, in
accordance with law.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

Madhav