APHC010447332017			IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH<br>AT AMARAVATI<br>WRIT APPEAL NO: 313 of 2017<br>along with<br>W.A.Nos.618, 619, 621, 622, 627, 629, 630, 631,<br>632, 637, 644, 651, 662, 668, 699, 700, 737, 770,<br>772, 776, 788 & 789 of 2017	ench<br>Sr.Nos:-<br>87-109<br>[3483]
W.A.No.313 of 2017:
The State<br>of Andhra Pradesh<br>& others				Appellants
Vs.
Kalangi Nageswara Rao				Respondent
			**********
Advocate for Appellants		:	GP for Agriculture
Advocate for Respondent		:	Mr. Mullapudi Satyanarayana,<br>Mr. B. S. Reddy &<br>Mr. G. Dinesh Kumar

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

DATE : 18th March 2025

Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:

This batch of Writ Appeals, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, have been filed challenging the judgment and order impugned, dated 29.12.2016, passed in W.P.No.6145 of 2013 & batch.

2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved and considering the fact that the judgment and order impugned is also common to all the writ appeals, we propose to dispose of the present batch of writ appeals by way of a common order.

3. With a view to understand the background in the context of which the present controversy has arisen, the material facts are as under:

The petitioners are all wholesale dealers who have been authorized to deal in fertilizers in terms of the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Control Order') which has been issued by the Government of India in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

4. It would be worthwhile to refer to some of the relevant provisions of the Control Order for understanding the controversy in its correct perspective.

Clause 8 of the Control Order deals with the 'application for intimation or registration'.

Clause 8(2) envisages that every person including a manufacturer, an importer, a pool handling agency, wholesaler and a retail dealer intending to sell or offer for sale or carrying on the business of selling of fertilizer shall make a 'Memorandum of Intimation' to the Notified Authority, in Form A-1 together with the fee prescribed under clause 36 and certificate of source in Form O.

Clause 8(3) envisages that on receipt of a 'Memorandum of Intimation', the Notified Authority should issue an acknowledgement of receipt in Form A-

2 and it shall be deemed to be an authorization letter granted and the concerned person as authorised dealer for the purposes of the Control Order.

However, sub-clauses of Clause 8 of the Control Order are not relevant, which are not being referred to.

5. For facility of reference, Form-A1 is reproduced hereunder:

"FORM 'A-1'

Memorandum of Intimation

• 1. Details of the application:
  • (a) Name of the applicant
• 2. Place of business (Please give full address) ….
• 3. Whether the application is for – Manufacturer Importer Pool Handling Agency Wholesale Dealer Retail Dealer [Tick mark whichever is applicable]

…..

7. …..

Terms and Conditions of authorization:

….

(2) I shall from time to time report to the Notified Authority and inform about change in the premises of sale depot and godowns attached to sale depot.

….

(5) I shall file a separate Memorandum of Intimation for, where the storage point is located outside the area jurisdiction of the Notified Authority where the sale depot is located.

(6) I shall file a separate Memorandum of Intimation for each place when the business of selling fertilizers is intended to be carried on at more than one place."

6. Since Clause 8(2) as also the Form A-1 and Form A-2 makes a reference to the Notified Authority, it would be pertinent to refer to the definition of 'Notified Authority', which is contained in Clause 2(nn) of the Control Order, which defines it to mean an authority appointed under Clause 26A.

Clause 26A defines the 'Notified Authority' as under:

"26A. Notified Authority- The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such number of persons, as it thinks necessary, to be Notified Authorities for the purpose of this Order and define the local limits within which each such Notified Authority shall exercise his jurisdiction."

7. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 15.12.2009, the Agriculture & Cooperation (FP-III) Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause 26A of the Control Order prescribing the area of operation of the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular), District Joint Director of Agriculture and the Additional Director of Agriculture (Fertilizer), which was as under:

"(I) The Additional Director of Agriculture who is looking after the Fertilizer subject in the O/o. Commissioner & Director of Agriculture as the "Notified Authority" for the purpose of issuing authorization letter to the Wholesale Dealer, Manufacturer, Pool Handling Agencies and Manufacturers acting as Marketers for other products in fertilizers in more than one district in the entire State.

(II) The District Joint Director of Agriculture as the "Notified Authority" for the purpose of issuing authorization letter to the Wholesale Dealers to carry on the business in their respective Jurisdiction i.e. in the district, other than Manufacturers, Pool Handling Agencies and Manufactures acting as Marketers for other products in fertilizers."

8. Subsequently, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.297, Agriculture & Cooperation (FP-II) Department, dated 08.12.2011, an amendment was incorporated in sub-para (1) in G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 15.12.2009, and the following was substituted:

"The Additional Director of Agriculture who is looking after the Fertilizer subject in the O/o. Commissioner & Director of Agriculture as the "Notified Authority" for the purpose of issuing of Authorization Letter to the Manufacturer, Pool Handling Agencies and Manufacturers acting as Marketers and Government Agencies for other products in fertilizers in more than one district in the entire State."

9. On a perusal of the two G.O.'s bearing Nos.288 & 297, it would be clear that whereas earlier in terms of G.O.Ms.No.288, the power was vested with the Additional Director of Agriculture as a "Notified Authority" to issue authorization letters including the wholesale dealer in respect of more than one district in the entire State, after the amendment by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.297, the phrase 'Wholesale Dealer' was omitted, with the result that there is now no notified authority which can issue the authorization letter to a wholesale dealer to operate in more than one district in the entire State.

10. After the amendment by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.297, the petitioners came to the Court stating that the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.297 post the amendment were being misinterpreted to mean that a wholesale dealer in a particular district would be entitled to sell the fertilizers only in a particular district and not outside.

11. The Writ Petition came to be allowed by virtue of the judgment and order impugned, dated 29.12.2016, wherein it was held that there was no specific restriction found in any of the clauses of the Control Order which could prevent a dealer, who has his place of sale located in one district, from selling the fertilizers to customers from outside the district.

What was stated in the relevant paragraph of the judgment and order impugned is reproduced hereunder:

"In view of the above, all the Writ Petitions are allowed by declaring that the petitioners, who are wholesale dealers in fertilizers and obtained acknowledgement and Certificate of Registration by showing their respective places of sale and storage, are entitled to sell their product outside their districts also, but within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned State. The miscellaneous petitions pending in these Writ Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs."

12. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the stand as was taken before the learned single Judge. It was urged that the view expressed by the learned single Judge was contrary to even the interim order of another learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.6945 of 2012, dated 28.03.2012, on which reliance was placed by the learned single Judge in the judgment and order impugned. It was urged that a dealer, who had been authorized to sell the fertilizers within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular district, could sell

6

his products outside their authorized districts only subject to compliance of filing a separate 'Memorandum of Intimation' as required under Clause 8(2) in the prescribed 'Form A-1' and in particular the terms and conditions figuring at Sl.Nos.5 & 6 of the said Form A-1.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents herein before the learned single Judge, on the other hand, tried to urge that the view expressed by the learned single Judge warrants no interference and as long as the point of sale was within the district under the jurisdiction of the Notified Authority, nothing could prevent the sale of the fertilizer products to customers from outside the district as long as the sale was made in favour of the customers who belong to the State.

14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

15. On a perusal of the scheme of the Control Order, it would be clear that it envisages the appointment of a Notified Authority by the State Government, who would define the local limits within which each such local authority would exercise its jurisdiction for defining the limits of enabling a wholesale dealer to sell fertilizers. 'Form A-1' is reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It can be further seen that the applicant is then required to apply in Form A-1 under Clause 8(2) of the Control Order and give details with regard to his place of business which includes the place for sale of fertilizers as also the place where the fertilizers would be stored.

7

The terms and conditions prescribed in 'Form A-1' further envisages that if the storage point is located outside the area of the jurisdiction of the Notified Authority, a separate 'Memorandum of Intimation' has to be filed by the dealer and further envisages the filing of a separate 'Memorandum of Intimation' in regard to each place when the business of selling fertilizers is intended to be carried on at more than one place.

16. The scheme therefore appears is devised in a manner which allows proper regulation of the sale of fertilizers at the district level with point of sale as also point of storage properly identified inasmuch as the fertilizer is an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The necessary consequence of nominating notified authorities either at the State Level as it existed earlier insofar as the wholesale dealers are concerned and after the amendment at the district level by necessary implication, ensures regulation of the wholesale business of fertilizers by the territorial notified authorities.

While the scheme does not envisage a total ban on the sale of fertilizers by a wholesale dealer outside a particular district, the scheme envisages that in case the dealer wishes to have a point of sale outside a particular district then he has to file a separate Memorandum of Intimation with the concerned Notified Authority.

17. The view therefore expressed by the learned single Judge in the judgment and order impugned that there is no specific restriction found in the

8

clauses of the Control Order which could prevent a wholesale dealer from selling the products outside a particular district, in our opinion, is not sustainable inasmuch as such a dealer, if he intends to have a place of business outside a particular district, shall have to submit a fresh 'Memorandum of Intimation' as was otherwise envisaged under Clause 8(2) of the Control Order, which would then be considered by the concerned Notified Authority.

18. Having said so, we are of the opinion that till such time the sale is being affected from a place of business which has been identified in Form A-1 and in regard to which the permission stands granted, a customer cannot be denied sale of fertilizers on the ground that he belongs to a district other than the one in which the point of sale or storage is located.

19. Be that as it may, the judgment and order impugned, dated 29.12.2016, passed by the learned single Judge shall stands modified in terms of the observations made hereinabove.

20. These Writ Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J

kbs

89

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

W.A.Nos.313, 618, 619, 621, 622, 627, 629, 630, 631, 632, 637, 644, 651, 662, 668, 699, 700, 737, 770, 772, 776, 788 & 789 of 2017

Dt: 18.03.2025