Seizure Of Bio‑product Stock Is Valid; Court Directs Analyst Report Within Two Weeks

A Division Bench of the High Court, hearing a writ petition challenging the seizure of entire stock of bio‑products following a raid, heard Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleaders for Home and Agriculture for the State. The petitioners contested the seizure carried out on 26.04.2019 at premises in Hayathnagar — M/s Jhass Agro Industries, M/s Jhass Agri Sciences and M/s Kinolac Bio Life Sciences — and sought a declaration that respondents had no power to seize stocks of bio‑products which, they contended, did not require licensing.

The Court summarised that inspection, collection of samples and sending them for laboratory testing constituted a statutory duty of the Insecticide Inspector and could not be faulted; it further held that seizure of stock under the Insecticides Act, 1968 was not rendered invalid merely because thirty days had elapsed. The petition was dismissed, subject to a direction to secure the analyst’s report within a limited period. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "On a careful reading of Section 21(1)(d) of the Act, it is seen that there are two components. First one deals with distribution, sale or use. On suspecting of use of pesticides, the Inspector may stop the distribution, sale or use of an insecticide, for a specified period not exceeding 30 days. The second component deals with seizer of stock. No time limit is prescribed on seizure of the stock. Section 22(2) of the Act, 1968 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Insecticide Inspectors on seizure of stock. This section vests power in the Inspector to revoke the order of seizure, including the return of stock. However, if he seizes the stock, as soon as possible, he should inform the Magistrate and take his orders as to the custody. Petitioners and respondents are silent on steps taken after seizure. As seizure of stock is not laced with time frame and is subject to further steps as required by the Act, decision to seize is not vitiated merely because 30 days lapsed." The Court also noted that "conducting of inspection on the subject premises, collecting the samples, and sending the samples to laboratory for testing cannot be faulted."

Background

The petitioners operated in the manufacture and marketing of bio‑products claimed to be free of toxic chemicals and useful for soil enrichment and plant protection. During a raid on 26.04.2019, officers seized stocks and forwarded samples to the DDA‑PTL Coding Centre, Malakpet, to test for pesticide or insecticide content. Petitioners argued that no licence was required to market bio‑products and relied on earlier directions in W.P. No. 25293 of 2014 (order dated 10.07.2015) which prescribed guidelines on packing, marking, disclosure of ingredients, analytical procedure, intimation to the Commissioner of Agriculture and maintenance of purchase/sales registers. A Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 1122 and 1236 of 2016 had clarified that those guidelines could "supplement and not supplant the law" and that enforcement powers under the Act would depend on facts of each case.

The panchanama recorded absence of analytical procedures, chemistry records and production activity at the inspected premises; the Commissioner of Agriculture's counter‑affidavit reiterated these findings and stated that a 2013 sample from one firm had been found laced with insecticide — a fact not denied by petitioners. The High Court examined Sections 21(1)(d), 22(2) and 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, holding inspection and seizure powers to be valid and observing that while Section 24 required the Insecticide Analyst to deliver a report within 30 days, failure to produce the report did not automatically vitiate seizure. The Court directed the Commissioner of Agriculture to secure the analyst’s report within two weeks and ordered the Inspector to take consequential steps under the Act. The writ petition was dismissed and pending miscellaneous matters were closed.

Case Details: Case No.: Not indicated in the order Case Title: Writ petition challenging seizure of bio‑products (as per the order) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Learned Government Pleader for Home; Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture