IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) AIZAWL BENCH W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 1. Mr. C.Rohmingliana, Proprietor of C.R. Store Champhai Bethel Veng, Champhai. 2. Mr.J.P. Lalhmangaiha, Proprietor of J.P. Business Centre Champhai Vengthlang, Champhai.. Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Mizoram represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Aizawl. 2. The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Agriculture Department, Aizawl. 3. The Controller & Director of Agriculture (Crop Husbandry), Mizoram, Aizawl. Respondents. B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K. SAIKIA For the petitioners :- Mr. C. Lalramzauva, Sr. Advocate, Mr. A.R. Malhotra, Advocate, Mr. T.J. Lalnuntluanga, Advocate, Mr. K. Laldinliana, Advocate, Mr. C. Malsawmtluanga, Advocate. For the respondents :- Mr. Lalsawirema, Govt. Advocate Date of hearing :- 10.04.2013 W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 1 of 17
Date of Judgment & Order :- 12.04.2013 J U D G M E N T A N D O R D E R (CAV) 1. In this proceeding, the order dated 17 th October, 2012 passed by respondent No. 3, the Controller & Director of Agriculture (Crop Husbandry), Mizoram, Aizawl is called into question. 2. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. T.J. Lalnuntluanga, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Lalsawirema, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this present proceeding are that petitioner No. 1 and petitioner 2 are the proprietors of C.R. Store, Champhai Bethel Veng and J.P. Business Centre, Champhai Vengthlang, Champhai respectively. It has been stated that in 2006, petitioners were granted certificates of registration for dealing in fertilizers in Champhai District in the State of Mizoram for a period of 3 years from the date of issue of such certificates. 4. The said period of 3 years came to an end in respect of petitioner No. 1 on 28 th February, 2009 whereas in respect of petitioner No. 2, said period was extended up to 30 th June, 2009. The certificates, so granted to petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No.2, are at Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 in the writ petition respectively. For ready reference, they are reproduced below:- GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE & MINOR IRRIGATION MIZORAM : AIZAWL No.D-24013/2/2002-DTE(AGR-ST)/94 Dated 22 nd February 2006 To, W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 2 of 17
C.Rohmingliana Champhai Bethel Veng. Champhai. Subj :- Registration Certificate for Selling of Fertilizer. Sir, With reference to above, you are hereby granted a Certificate of Registration for Selling of Fertilizers in Mizoram (Champhai District) for a period of 3 (Three) years from the date of issue of this letter upto 28 th February 2009 as per Certificate of Registration Form B enclosed herewith and you are requested to submit dealership certificate from the company. You may please note that you have to furnish the monthly stock position, quantity of sale, balance etc. by the 10 th of every month to the Registration Authority. Enclo : Form B Yours faithfully. Sd/- ( LALRAMTHANGA TOCHHAWNG ) Director of Agriculture & Minor Irrigation Mizoram, Aizawl. GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE & MINOR IRRIGATION MIZORAM : AIZAWL No.D-24013/2/2006-DTE(AGR-ST)/87-88 Dated 28 th July 2006 To, J.P. Lalhmangaiha Champhai Vengthlang. Champhai District. Subj :- Registration Certificate for Selling of Fertilizer in Mizoram. Sir, With reference to above, you are hereby granted a Certificate of Registration for Selling of Fertilizers in Mizoram (Champhai District) for a period of 3 (Three) years from the date of issue of this letter upto 30 th June 2009 as per Certificate of Registration Form B enclosed here with and you are requested to submit Dealership certificate from the Company. You may please note that you have to furnish the monthly stock position, quantity of sale, balance etc. by the 10 th of every month to the Registration Authority. Enclo : Form B Yours faithfully, Sd/- ( LALRAMTHANGA TOCHHAWNG ) Director of Agriculture & Minor Irrigation Mizoram, Aizawl. 5. As per form B enclosed with such certificates, the petitioners were allowed to deal in Urea, DAP and MOP. W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 3 of 17
6. It has been stated that the fertilizers which are called controlled items require a certificate of source to deal in such item. On the other hand, the fertilizers which are not controlled item require no certificate of source to carry on business in such articles. It has been point out that while Urea is a controlled item, other two fertilizers, mentioned in the form B enclosed with the certificate of registration, are not controlled item. As such, the petitioners were not required to obtain certificate of source to carry on business in respect of DAP and MOP although such certificate is required to deal in urea since urea is a controlled item. 7. Since a certificate of source is required to engage in the business of urea, the petitioner obtained such certificate from M/s Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. ( which is a Govt. of India undertaking). The certificate of source in respect of urea in the name of petitioner No.1 and 2 were attached with the petition as Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 respectively. 8. On getting the certificates of source in respect of urea, from the competent dealer, the petitioners carried on the business of fertilizers viz, Urea, DAP and MOP in the District of Champhai during the period for which the certificates of registration aforesaid were granted on fulfilling the terms and conditions stated in the certificates of registration. 9. When the period aforesaid was about to come to an end, the petitioners submitted applications in plain papers with requisite fees to the respondent No. 3 seeking renewal of their certificates of registration for another period of 3(three) years with effect from the date on which such certificates are granted. 10. On the receipt of such applications with requisite fees, the respondent No.3 issued acknowledgement authorizing the petitioners W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 4 of 17
to carry on business in aforesaid articles for another period of 3 (three) years with effect from 26.2.2009. In that connection, my attention has been drawn to documents which were attached as at Annexure -5, 6, 7 & 8. 11. While carrying business for second term on the strength of Annexure 7 & 8 with effect from 26.2.2009, vide office order dated 16 th February, 2010 at Annexure-12, the respondent No. 3 cancelled the dealership license issued in favour of the petitioners in respect of fertilizers items namely DAP and MOP thereby preventing the petitioners from carrying on business in respect of aforesaid two items. 12. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached this court by the way of filing W.P.(C) No. 97 of 2010 challenging the cancellation order dated 16 th Feb.2010. The learned court on hearing the parties, cancelled the order on the ground that the order dated 16 th Feb. 2010 was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was never given an opportunity of being heard against such cancellation. 13. Thereafter, vide letter darted 6.01.2011 at Annexure-14, the respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice. For ready reference show cause notice is reproduced below:- GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE (CROP HUSBANDRY) MIZORAM : AIZAWL No.D-24013/2/2010-DTE(AGR-INM)/48 Dated 6 th January, 2010 To, C.Rohmingliana Champhai Bethel Veng. J.P. Lalhmangaiha Champhai Vengthlang. W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 5 of 17
Subject :-Show Cause Notice. Sir, I am to inform you that Fertilizer dealer license or Certificate of Registration shall be granted in conform with Certificate of source in Form O vide Clause 8 (2) of FCO 1985. But your License for dealership of fertilizers includes DAP & MOP which were not appeared in Form O issued by the Company concern vide letter No.BVFCL/MD/GHY/07-08 dt.6.4.2007. As such, the undersigned like to see that the dealership license of fertilizers issued is proper and lawful. You are, therefore, informed to dispose the balance of DAP & MOP from your stock within 30 days from the date of issue of this letter. So that the fresh dealership license of fertilizer will be issued for Urea (MUKTA) only. You may also write to the undersigned for any other query within this period. Sd/- ( C.LALZARLIANA ) Controller & Director of Agriculture (Crop Husbandry ), Mizoram, Aizawl. 14. Subsequently, vide letter dated 28.02.2011, dealership license of the petitioner in respect of DAP and MOP had again been cancelled w.e.f. from the date of order presumably on the ground that petitioners did not obtain certificates of source in the form O to deals in DAP and MOP. The aforesaid order is attached with the writ petition as Annexure-15. Being aggrieved by such an order, the petitioners once again approached this court by the way of filing W.P.(C) No. 30/2011 seeking quashing of the order dated 28.02.2011 at Annexure- 15. 15. The said writ petition was allowed and disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.3 to allow the petitioner to deals in fertilizers for the remaining period of license, however, on petitioners W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 6 of 17
paying within a period of 7 days the necessary fees for dealing in MOP and DAP as per the provision of Fertilizer Control Order (in short FCO). Thereafter, petitioners were allowed to continue their dealership for the remaining period for which certificates were granted. 16. However, once again, before the expiry of renewal period, the petitioners submitted applications to the authority concerned seeking renewal of dealership license for another period of 3 years. Said applications dated 14.2.2012 was received by respondent No. 3 on 17.02.2012. Unfortunately, the respondent No. 3 did not consider/dispose of such applications. Nor did he inform the petitioners as to what has been done on their applications. 17. It has been pointed out that on earlier occasions when the petitioners submitted applications for renewal, the respondent No.3 received it and on such receipt, petitioners were instantly informed to deposit renewal fees of Rs. 1500/- by the way of draft paving the way for renewal of dealership license and thereafter, they were issued acknowledgement in form A 2 authorizing/entitling them to carry their business for another 3 years. 18. However, on the receipt of applications dated 14.2.2012 on 17.2.2012, the respondent No.3 refused to do what he had been doing all along till the receipt of applications aforesaid on 17.2.2012. 19. In the meantime, respondent No. 3 issued the office order dated 26.06.2012 whereby and where-under the names of persons, selected for doing business in fertilizers as either wholesale dealer or retail dealer in 6(six) District in the State of Mizoram including the district of Champhai has been published. The said office order is annexed as Annexure-19 to the writ petition. However, the names of the petitioners were not included in the aforesaid list. W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 7 of 17
20. Since the names of the petitioners were not included in those lists of newly appointed dealers vide order dated 26.06.2012 and since their renewal applications were not disposed of as per law, the petitioners having found no other alternative had approached this court once again preferring W.P.(C) No. 73 of 2012. After hearing both the parties, this court disposed of the said writ petition vide its order dated 11.11.2011 directing respondent to render a reasoned decision on the prayers for renewal of license, made by the petitioners. 21. It was also stated that such decision needs to be taken within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. On the receipt of such order, respondent No. 3 had informed the petitioner vide its order dated 17.10.2012 that their applications for renewal of license could not be accepted since they did not apply for renewal in accordance with Clause 11(1) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. In the notice aforesaid, it has also been stated that in consequence of open advertisement, four wholesale dealers were already selected for dealing in fertilizers in the district of Champhai. 22. However, before making such decision petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard. The above coupled with the fact that the renewal of dealership license was refused violating the relevant procedures prescribed in the Order of 1985 make the order impugned unsustainable in law. Being aggrieved as aforesaid, the petitioners have preferred this present writ petition seeking quashing of the order in question. 23. In that connection, it has been pointed out that the renewal of license can be refused only when a dealer has not been doing business in the year proceeding the years for which renewal is sought for. Since the petitioners have been doing business sincerely with all earnest at his command and since the petitioners are complying with the W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 8 of 17
conditions imposed upon them, the order refusing to renew their licensees is illegal and as such, is liable to be set aside and quashed. 24. State respondents having filed counter-affidavit, objected the prayer, so made by petitioners. It has been contended that petitioner has been granted certificates of registration to carry on business in respect of Urea, DAP and MOP with further instruction to submit certificates of source in form O from company having necessary competence to deal with fertilizers. That apart, they were to furnish the Registration Authority monthly stock position showing quantity of sale and balance, etc. by 10 th of every month. 25. Unfortunately, the petitioner had furnished certificate of source only in respect of urea. It has not furnished any certificate of source in respect of other two items, namely, DAP and MOP. Equally importantly, though they were required to submit stock position by 10 th of every month, the petitioners hardly complied with such a vital condition. In that connection, my attention has been drawn to Annexure-10 series at page 20 to 40. 26. It is also the case of the respondents that this court vide its order dated 13.12.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 30 of 2012 while directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to carry on business in fertilizera till the end of the period for which license was renewed also required the petitioners to pay/deposit within 7 days the necessary fees for dealing in MOP and DAP as per provisions under the FCO, 1985. 27. Though, petitioners were allowed to deals in fertilizers aforesaid for the rest of the renewal period on the payment of requisite fees as required by the court, the petitioners did not fulfill the requirement of the Order, 1985 to carry on the business in fertilizers since they never W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 9 of 17
obtained certificates of source in form O from competent company to carry on business in DAP and MOP. 28. The another factor that has been agitated to resist the prayer of petitioners in present writ petition was that a dealer who deals in fertilizers must apply for renewal of his dealership license in the prescribed form viz form A 1. But petitioners never applied for renewal of their dealership license in prescribed form. Quite contrary to it, petitioners had always submitted their applications in plain papers which prevented the respondents from assessing accurately the competence of the petitioners to have their license renewed. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondents submit this court to dismiss the present proceeding. 29. Above being the rival claims, let me see whose claim stands to reason in view of materials on records. In that connection, I have perused the Rules relevant for the purpose of present proceeding. It has vehemently been contended that without obtaining the certificate of source, the petitioners cannot deals in fertilizers and as such, while granting the certificate of registration, the petitioners were asked to submit the respondent No. 3 such certificates on obtaining the same from competent company. 30. This proposition was disputed by the petitioners stating that a certificate of source is required to deal with only controlled fertilizers. Since the DAP & MOP are not controlled fertilizers, the petitioners are not required to obtain a certificate of source to deal in such fertilizers. In this context, it may be stated that there was no dispute over the fact that DAP & MOP are not controlled fertilizers. In order to know if a decontrolled fertilizer requires a certificate of source or not, I find it necessary to have a look into the Rule 7 & 8 of the order of 1985. 31. For ready reference Rule 7 & 8 are reproduced below:- W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 10 of 17
7. Registration of Industrial dealers and authorization of other dealers:- No person shall sell, offer for sale or carry on the business of selling of fertilizer at any place as wholesale dealer or retail dealer except under and in accordance with Clause 8: Provided that a State Government may, if it considers it necessary or expedient, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt from the provisions of this clause any person selling fertilizer to farmers in such areas and subject to such conditions as may be specified in that notification. 8. Application for intimation or registration :- (1) Every person intending to sell or offer for sale or carrying on the business of selling of fertilizer as Industrial Dealer shall obtain a certificate of registration from the Controller by making an application in Form A together with the fee prescribed under Clause 36 and a certificate of source in Form O. (2) 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 A1 duly filled in, in duplicate, together with the fee prescribed under Clause 36 and certificate of source in Form O. (3) On receipt of a Memorandum of Intimate, complete in all respects, the Notified Authority shall issue an acknowledgement of receipt in Form A2 and it shall be deemed to be an authorization letter granted and the concerned person as authorized dealer for the purposes of this order. Provided that a certificate of registration granted before the commencement of the Fertilizer (Control) Ame ndment Order, 2003 shall be deemed to be an authorization letter granted under the provisions of this Order. Provided further that where the applicant is a State Government, a manufacturer or an importer or a pool-handling agency, it shall not be necessary for it or him to submit Form O. Provided also that a separate Memorandum of Intimation shall be submitted by an applicant for wholesale business or retail dealership, as the case may be: Provided also that where fertilizers are obtained for sale from different sources, a certificate of source from each such source shall be furnished in Form O.) (Provided also that where the manufacturer of organic fertilizer is a State Government or municipality, it shall not be necessary for it to obtain the authorization letter. Provided also that where the manufacturer of vermin-compost, other than a State Government or municipality, has annual production capacity less than 50 metric tones, it shall not be necessary for him to obtain the authorization letter.) (11). Renewal of certificates of registration and authorization letters:- (1) Every holder of a certificate of registration granted under Clause 9 or authorization letter granted or deemed to have been granted under Clause 8, desiring to renew such certificate or authorization letter shall, before the date of expiry of such certificate of registration or authorization letter, as the case may be, make an application for renewal to the Controller, in Form C, or to the Notified Authority in Form A1, respectively, in duplicate, together with the fee prescribed under Clause 36 for such renewal and a certificate of source as required under Clause 8. W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 11 of 17
(2) On receipt of an application under sub-clause (1), together with such fee and certificate of source, the Controller may renew the certificate of registration or the Notified Authority, as the case may be, shall issue acknowledgement receipt of renewal in Form A2: Provided that a certificate of registration shall not be renewed if the holder of the same did not sell any fertilizer during the period of one year immediately preceding the date of expiry of the period of validity. 32. On a very careful reading of aforesaid provisions, it would appear clear that whenever a person intends to do business in fertilizers, as defined in Rule 2(h) of the Order, 1985, he, amongst other things, needs to obtain a certificate of source from the competent company regardless of whether fertilizer, sought to be dealt with, is a controlled item or not. No other conclusion can be reduced from the reading of aforesaid provisions. 33. In our instant proceeding, it is not the case of the petitioners that they had obtained certificate of source from the competent company to deal in fertilizers namely DAP & MOP. Their simple case was that such a certificate is not required since DAP & MOP are not controlled items. But such a proposition is found untenable in law and as such, claim of the petitioners that by not renewing their dealership licenses by the respondent No.3, it committed gross illegality is found to be much without substance. 34. Coming to the next contention that the petitioners applications for renewal cannot be considered since they did not applied for the same in prescribed form, I have found that proviso to Rule 11(1) requires that every applicant seeking renewal of his dealership license needs to submit such application in prescribed form i.e. form A1. In that connection, I have also perused the form A1. 35. On perusal of form A1 together with Rule 11(1) of the Order, 1985, I have found that a dealer seeking renewal of his license needs to furnish some information relating to his business to the authority concerned. The information in the applications in form A1 gives fair idea to the authority concerned as to whether the prayer for renewal W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 12 of 17
of dealership license needs to be accepted. In that view of the matter, making an application in form A1 seeking renewal of dealership license cannot be idle formality. 36. Coming back to our case, we have found that evidently and admittedly, the petitioners did not submit their prayer for renewal of dealership license in the prescribed form. More importantly, they did not furnish a good deal of information to the authority concerned which is to be furnish while seeking renewal of their license. In the teeth of such revelations, the refusal of the respondent No.3 to renew the dealership license in favour of the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. 37. We have already found that the respondent has pointed out that under the certificates of registration, the petitioners are to submit their stock position etc. by the 10 th days of every month. However, this condition was honored always in violation than in observance. In that connection, my attention has been drawn to the documents at Annexure-10 series. My perusal of those documents at Annexur-10 series clearly reveals that the petitioners hardly comply with the aforesaid condition stated in the certificates of registration. This, my considered view, is another reason which requires the respondent No. 3 to take into account while renewing the dealership license. 38. Coming to the allegations that the petitioners did not comply with the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 30 of 2011 on 13.12.2011, I have found that while directing the respondent No.3 to allow the petitioners to deal in fertilizers for the remaining license period, this court also required the petitioners to do their part of duty in accordance with requirement of the Order, 1985 which includes payment of fees as well as submission of certificate of source on obtaining the same from competent company. W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 13 of 17
39. But there is absolutely no material on record to show that the petitioners had ever obtained the certificate of source from the competent company for being submitted to the respondent No.3, their plea all along being that they are not required to furnish such certificate in respect of the decontrolled items namely DAP & MOP. These revelations sadly become one more testimony of petitioners being guilty of violating not only the requirement of the Order in question but also the order of the court as well. 40. It has been contended that since on earlier occasions, the respondent No.3 had renewed his dealership license despite his submitting applications in simple papers and inspite of his carrying business in DAP & MOP without obtaining certificate of source, the respondent No.3 needs to be directed to renew the dealership license of the petitioners on accepting their applications dated 14.2.2012. 41. This prayer was objected to by learned counsel for the State respondents who vehemently contends that nobody can take advantage of wrong order/ decision, passed by any authority whatsoever. If this court is pleased to accept such a proposal of the petitioners, it would not only regularize an illegal act on the part of the respondent No.3 but also it would also be a party to the wrong committed by authority aforesaid. 42. In that connection, he has drawn my attention to the decision rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Chandigarh Administration and Anr. vs- Jagjit Singh and Anr. reported in AIR 1995 SC 705. 43. In the case of M/s Chandigarh Administration ( Supra) Hon ble Supreme Court held as follows:- 8. We are of the opinion that the basis or the principle, if it can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is unsustainable in W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 14 of 17
law and indefensible in principle. Since we have come across many such instances, we think it necessary to deal with such pleas at a little length. Generally speaking the mere fact that the respondent-authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extra-ordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent-authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, it it can be done according to law indeed, wherever it is possible, the court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent authority to repeat the illegality, the court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/ order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. Of course, if in case the order in favour of the other person is found to be a lawful and justified one it can be followed and a similar relief can be given to the petitioner if it is found that the petitioner s case is similar to the other person s case. But then why examine another person s case in his absence rather than examining the case of the petitioner who is present before the court and seeking the relief. If is not more appropriate and convenient to examine the entitlement of the petitioner before the court to the relief asked for in the facts and circumstances of his case than to enquire into the correctness of the order made or action taken in another person s case, which other person is not before the Court nor is his case. In our considered opinion, such a course barring exceptional situations would neither be advisable nor desirable. In other words, the High Court cannot ignore the law and the well-accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction and say that because in one case a particular order has been passed or a particular action has been taken, the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact whether such an order or action is contrary to law or otherwise. Each case must be decided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal principles. The orders and actions of the authorities cannot be equated to the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts nor can they be elevated to the level of the precedents, as understood in the judicial W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 15 of 17
world. (What is the position in the case of orders passed by authorities in exercise of their quasi-judicial power, we express no opinion. That can be dealt with when a proper case arises). 44. In my considered opinion, above decision, has fairly and squarely covered our case as well and as such, on the application of decision above to our case, I have found that the prayers in the present petition cannot be granted in view of aforesaid decision of Hon ble Apex Court of the Country. 45. Referring to the letter dated 26 th June, 2012, it has been stated that the respondent No.3 has selected some persons to deal in fertilizers although they did not fulfill the conditions, so stated in the Order, 1985. But in spite of petitioners nearly fulfilling all the conditions in the Order, 1985, their applications seeking renewal of their dealership licenses were rejected. These are fluent testimony of not only a deferential treatment being met out those persons but also petitioners being treated extremely unfairly. On those counts also the petitioners desires that their prayers in this proceedings needs to accepted. 46. This contention was opposed to by learned State counsel contending that under the order aforementioned, respondent No. 3 did not grant the dealerships to the persons whose names appeared in such an order. Under the order aforesaid, the respondent No.3 has selected some persons who would be granted in the dealership license only on their fulfilling the condition specified therein. 47. On the perusal of the order dated 26 th June, 2012, in the light of Rule 7 and 8 of the Order, 1985, I have found justification in the claim so made by learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Being so, I find no deferential treatment being made out to the persons whose name appeared in the order dated 26 th June, 2012 in matter of giving license to deal in fertilizers. 48. On the contention that the licensing authority can refuse the renewal of dealership license only on the conditions stated I n the proviso to Rule 11(3), W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 16 of 17
I have found that such an argument hold no water. A dealer under the Order of 1985 who carries on business in fertilizers on violating the terms and conditions, stated in the registration certificates, in my considered opinion, cannot claim renewal of his license which is the case of the petitioners of the present proceeding. 49. Since the petitioners have already been found to have violated the conditions, incorporated in the certificates of registration, the Order of 1985 as well as the order passed by this court on 13/12/2011 in W.P.(C) No. 30/2011, I am of the opinion that action on the part of respondent No.3 cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal justice. and violative principle of natural 50. In view of what I have discussed herein before and what have emerged thereof, I am of the opinion that the petitioners could not make out a case requiring this court to invoke its writ jurisdiction to interfere with the order impugned. In the result, the petition is dismissed as being without any merit. JUDGE Sul/zh/Kv W.P.(C) No. 86 of 2012 Page 17 of 17