Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Pradeep Brothers & Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 36735 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 6757 (28 March 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 1

1. WP No.32344 of 2005

2. WP  36735 of 2005

3. WP 57098 of 2005

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J.

Hon'ble RK Rastogi, J.

1. The petitioners are the whole sale dealers of fertilizers. They were  so registered in the year 1999 under clause 8 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (the Control Order). This registration was for a period of three years and it was so renewed in the year 2002 for another three years. During this period the State Government issued the  GO dated 31.12.2003 prohibiting the renewal of licenses within five kilometres from the India Nepal border. Aggrieved with that GO the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

2. We have heard counsel for the petitioners and standing counsel for the respondents.  

3. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that renewal can be refused only  if the conditions under clause 9 of the Control Order  are satisfied and no other  conditions can be imposed.

4. There is no condition in clause 9 that the licence of wholesale dealers situate within five kilometres from India-Nepal border can not be renewed and as such this condition can not be imposed by the GO.

5. The counsel for the petitioners next submitted that  there is no provision under which the State Government can prohibit renewal of licence in favour of any one.

6. The Standing counsel placed reliance on proviso to clause 7 of the Control Order. This proviso merely provides that the State Government may exempt any person who is selling fertilizer to the farmers. This proviso empowers the State Government to exempt any person but does not empower to place  any restriction. In view of this, the GO dated 31.12.2003 is illegal and it is hereby quashed. The registering authority under the Control Order may consider the renewal of licences of the petitioners in accordance with law.  

7. With these observations the writ petitions are allowed. Let a copy of this order be placed in record of WP No. 36735 of 2005 and WP no. 57098 of 2005.

Dated: 28.3.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.