HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Before: The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi
Date: 6th November, 2025
Writ Petition No. 30819 of 2025
[2025:APHC:47184]
CASE TITLE
N.R. Fertilizers … Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Director of Agriculture and Others … Respondents
Counsel:
For Petitioner — P. Madhukar Reddy
For Respondents — Government Pleader for Agriculture
HEADNOTES
Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985 — Cl. 31(1) — Cancellation of Fertilizer Retail Licence — Requirement of Personal Hearing — Violation of Natural Justice —
Where the petitioner’s fertilizer retail licence was cancelled by Memo dated 04-11-2025 solely on the ground that no explanation was submitted to a show-cause notice alleging violation of Clauses 4, 5, 8(2) and 35 of the 1985 Order, the High Court held that:
Held, the show-cause notice was vague, mentioning only clause numbers without particulars of alleged violations, and the complaint referred therein was not furnished to the petitioner. Cancellation of licence merely for non-submission of explanation, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing as required under Clause 31(1) of the Order, 1985, amounted to violation of principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the impugned Memo cancelling the licence was set aside, with liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh show-cause notice enclosing all relevant materials (complaint and panchanama) and affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before passing fresh orders.
Result: Writ Petition allowed. Licence cancellation set aside. Respondents at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
CASE FACTS
-
The petitioner was granted a fertilizer retail licence in 2024 by the 1st respondent (Assistant Director of Agriculture) for business at Anantapur District.
-
On 30-10-2025, based on a complaint from farmers of Boyawandlakottal Village, officials inspected the petitioner’s shop and issued a show-cause notice citing alleged violations of Clauses 4, 5, 8(2) and 35 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, calling for explanation within 3 days.
-
The petitioner contended that he was not provided copies of the complaint or panchanama, and therefore was unable to furnish an effective explanation.
-
Without providing any opportunity of hearing, the 1st respondent issued Memo Roc.No.D/FCO/1985/2025 dated 04-11-2025, cancelling the fertilizer retail licence.
-
The petitioner challenged the same as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Clause 31(1) of the 1985 Order, which mandates giving an opportunity of personal hearing before cancellation.
-
Respondents claimed that the panchanama had been served and that issuance of show-cause notice itself satisfied the requirement under Clause 31(1).
HELD BY
Per B.S. Bhanumathi, J. —
-
The show-cause notice did not specify factual particulars of violations, and no copy of the farmers’ complaint was furnished. A notice referring only to clause numbers is too vague for an effective reply.
-
Clause 31(1) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, requires that the licensee be given a personal hearing before cancellation; this requirement was not complied with.
-
Since the cancellation was based only on non-submission of explanation, and the procedure under Clause 31(1) was not followed, the order is unsustainable in law.
-
However, considering that inspection and panchanama had been made, the respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh show-cause notice with all relevant materials and after giving an opportunity of hearing.
RESULT
-
Writ Petition allowed.
-
Impugned Memo No. D/FCO/1985/2025 dated 04-11-2025 cancelling fertilizer licence set aside.
-
Respondents granted liberty to proceed afresh as per Clause 31(1) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985.
-
No order as to costs.
-
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.
CITATION
N.R. Fertilizers v. Assistant Director of Agriculture & Ors.,
W.P. No. 30819 of 2025, decided on 06-11-2025 (A.P. High Court, per B.S. Bhanumathi, J.) = 2025:APHC:47184
No comments:
Post a Comment