Yara Fertilisers India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra

Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 03^rd March, 2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar (for short, ‘Magistrate’) below Exhibit 1 in R.C.C. No. 324 of 2022, whereby issued process against the petitioners and one M/s Kisan Krushi Seva Kendra for the offence punishable under Sections 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’), have filed this petition.

The crux of the argument of the learned Senior Counsel is that the impugned order can’t be sustained on three grounds.

He drew my attention to the chemical analysis report of the Central Fertilizer Quality Control and Training Institute, Faridabad dated 19^th March, 2021 and pointed out the observation nos. 3, 7, 9 and 10 as well as the remarks therein and submitted that the said report was analysis report of 17^th March, 2021 and at that time the remarks demonstrates that the sample was according to specification. Similarly, he drew my attention to page no. 49 of the report dated 24^th March, 2021, of the Fertiliser Control Laboratory Report, Pune and drew my attention to Sr. Nos. 2, 5 and 7 and the remarks clause. It appears that the said sample was seized from one Kisan Krushi Seva Kendra, Shop No. 41, Kothi Road Ahmednagar on 05^th March, 2021, and the date of the report is 24^th March, 2021, and therefore, submitted that issuance of summons order of the learned Magistrate appears to be contrary to the facts on record.

He further drew my attention to the impugned order and submitted that the same is a non-speaking order. The learned Magistrate has not given the reasons for issuing the summons. As such, he urged that the said summons order be set aside. He relied on the following judgments :-

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent, though initially opposed that the appeal was not filed within limitation, however, subsequently, after considering the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 10^th January, 2022, passed in Suo-moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2022, does not dispute that the appeal was filed within limitation. Similarly, she further tried to distinguish the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners. However, thereafter, she does not dispute that prior to the decision of the appeal under Section 32(2), the complaint was filed, which would have had to be filed after the order was passed in the appeal. Therefore, she submitted that an appropriate order be passed.

I have gone through the impugned order as well as the reports produced by the petitioners. I have also gone through Section 32A of the Fertilizer Control Order and Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, and also gone through the judgments relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners.

At the outset, it appears that on 30^th March, 2021, the respondent received the analysis report of the fertiliser sample from the Fertiliser Control Laboratory, Pune, dated 24^th March, 2021. According to the said report, the respondent authority issued notices to the petitioners and M/S Kisan Krushi Seva Kendra on 12^th April, 2021. Against the said notice, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture on 07^th February, 2022 and in paragraph no.2 of the said appeal, they have categorically stated that due to the Covid pandemic, the offices were closed, hence the appeal filed by them is within limitation as per the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Suo-moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020. Undisputedly, as per the order dated 10^th January, 2022, the Hon’ble Apex Court has excluded the period between 15^th March, 2020, and 28th February, 2022, in computing the period of limitation for instituting the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Undisputedly, the notice was issued on 12^th April, 2021. The petitioner filed the appeal on 07^th February, 2022, i.e., within the said period (which was excluded in computing the period of limitation). Therefore, the appeal was filed within the prescribed period. It is pertinent to note that the said appeal is still pending. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the pendency of the said appeal with the competent authority.

This Court, in paragraph nos.13 and 14 in judgment of the Tata Chemicals Ltd. (supra), has observed that “if the observations made in the impugned order were contrary to record coupled with the fact that the said order was passed without granting reasonable opportunity of being heard as required by the relevant section of the Act, and therefore, held that it is a clear that the basic jurisdictional aspect in the form of the analysis report that led to initiation of the impugned action has ceased to exist in law. Accordingly, the report that can now be looked into and treated as final is the reference analysis report, and therefore, further held that it is well settled that ‘if the foundation of a particular action is based on the existence of a jurisdictional fact and said jurisdictional fact itself ceases to operate or is disturbed during pendency of the consequential action then the entire action commenced on the basis of such jurisdictional fact must fall to the ground.”

In the case in hand, it also appears that prior to deciding the appeal, the respondent has initiated action. Therefore, the impugned action has ceased to exist in law, as it was initiated before the decision on the appeal. I would like to refer to the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate as under :-

A bare perusal of the impugned order appears that the learned Magistrate has not considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court while passing the order. It seems that the learned Judge has not applied his mind while passing the impugned order. As such, it appears that the passing of the order by the learned Judge is totally a non-speaking one and contrary to the settled position of law. Thus, it cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. It appears that the case of the petitioner is covered by the mandate laid down in the judgment relied upon by them as well as the order of the Apex Court in Suo-Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020.

As a result, this petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C) to the extent of the petitioner only. As such, the impugned order dated 03^rd March, 2022, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, below Exhibit 1 in R.C.C. No. 324 of 2022, is quashed and set aside to the extent of the petitioner. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.