Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MODERN AGRO CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES versus DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE, PUNJAB ETC.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Modern Agro Chemicals Industries v. Director, Agriculture, Punjab etc. - CWP-8445-2000 [2006] RD-P&H 5795 (22 August 2006)

C.W.P NO. 8445 OF 2000 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 8445 OF 2000

Date of decision : July 18, 2006

* * * * *

M/s Modern Agro Chemicals Industries Ltd. ............Petitioner Vs.

Director, Agriculture, Punjab etc. ...........Respondents * * * * *

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S BHALLA

Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

Although various pleas have been taken by the petitioner- Company for challenging the order dated July 14, 1998 passed by the Chief Inspector, Fertilizer-cum-Registering Authority and the appellate order dated January 17, 2000 passed by Director of Agriculture, Punjab, but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his challenge to the appellate order primarily on the ground that a special plea was raised by the petitioner-Company before the appellate authority that the samples were not drawn by following a due procedure as C.W.P NO. 8445 OF 2000 [2]

laid down in Schedule II, Part-A of Fertilizer Control Order 1985. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of drawing the samples neither any representative of the petitioner-Company was present nor there was any other responsible officer associated with the aforesaid sampling. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner- Company has ignored this fact.

From a perusal of the order dated January 17, 2000 (Annexure P-6), we are satisfied that the grievance made by the petitioner-Company is justified. Consequently, without adverting to the various other pleas raised by the petitioner-Company in the present petition we quash the order dated January 17, 2000 (Annexure P-6) passed by Director of Agriculture, Punjab and direct the appellate authority to pass a fresh order in the appeal filed by the petitioner-Company after taking into consideration the various grounds taken by it in challenging the order dated July 14, 1998. The petitioner- Company shall now appear before the appellate authority on August 21, 2006 at 10:00 A.M.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual charges.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

July 18, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu JUDGE


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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