AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Bist, J.
This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2691 of
2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by holding that power of judicial review cannot be exercised in technical matters,
where expertise would be needed in the relevant field. The operative portion of the impugned judgment is extracted below:-
“The scope of judicial review in technical matters is very limited. The matter has been got examined by the Director of Industries (M.S.M.E.) from
the G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. The Intellectual Property Management Centre, Department of Genetics & Plant Breeding,
G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology has informed the Director Industries (MSME) on 6th May, 2014 that the activities involving
collection of germ-plasm under the Seed Processing (for Genetic Enhancement), is undertaken by public institutions of State Agriculture
Universities/Universities and Govt. of India like National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources and not by Seed Processing Industries.
Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.
Appellant established a Seed Processing Unit in District Champawat, which is a category A District as per the categorization made by Government
of Uttarakhand vide notification dated 15.10.2008. The said notification provides for subsidy to Micro, Small and Medium Industries, subject to
fulfillment of conditions mentioned in the notification.
Appellant applied for subsidy in terms of the said notification, however, his claim for subsidy was rejected by District Level Committee in its
meeting dated 18.09.2014. The decision taken by the said Committee was communicated to the appellant by the General Manager, District Industries
Center, Champawat vide letter dated 26.09.2014, which was impugned in the writ petition.
Perusal of the letter dated 26.09.2014 indicates that before taking decision on petitioner’s application for subsidy, G.B. Pant University of
Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar was consulted and the University had opined that the work of seed processing (for genetic enhancement) is
done by State Agriculture University/University and Central Government Institutions like National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources and not by
private Seed Processing Units. Based on the said opinion, appellant’s claim was rejected.
A circular dated 10.03.2011 issued by Development Commissioner, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India has
been enclosed as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. Subject of the said circular is “categorization of activities under manufacture or service under
the MSMED Act, 2006â€, which was issued to clear the doubts raised by the State Governments and other concerned agencies. Clause A (i) of the
said circular is extracted below:-
“(A) Activities considered as manufacturing:
(i) Seed Processing (for genetic enhancement).
(Involving collection of germplasm, cleaning, gravity separation, chemical treatment etc.)â€
G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology tested appellant’s eligibility for subsidy in terms of the aforesaid circular issued by the
Central Government under MSMED Act, 2006. This has not been challenged in the writ petition, however, it is contended in paragraph No.17 of the
writ petition that collection of germplasm is not a process of seed production, but a research work.
Learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the matter by observing that while exercising power of judicial review, Writ Court cannot substitute
its opinion in place of opinion of the experts. It is settled position in law that while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court
cannot sit in judgment over the views expressed by technical or scientific experts.
G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology is one of the premier Institutions in the country, dealing with genetic engineering and research
activities in the field of agriculture. The Professor and Head, Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding has expressed the opinion in his letter dated
05.2014 (Annexure No.8 to the Writ Petition) that the activities undertaken by the appellant do not involve collection of germplasm for genetic
enhancement.
We concur with the view expressed by learned Single Judge. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by an expert in the field of
genetics and plant breeding. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. No
order as to cost.