M/S Ankita Seeds Center v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.44576 OF 2018 DATED :10.12.2018 Between :

M/s.Ankita Seeds Center, Shop No.17-1-595/2/5, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad-500 059, Rep., by its Proprietor, R.Venkata Reddy S/o.Sattireddy, Aged 38 yrs.

..

Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep., by the Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, T.S.Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.

.. Respondents This court made the following :

- 2 - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.44576 OF 2018 ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Agriculture for the respondents. 2.

Petitioner claims to be carrying seeds business in the name and style of M/s.Ankita Seeds Center. Petitioner applied for renewal of licence for further period. In the order impugned, the renewal application of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that Ankita Seeds Traders, the dealer was found to have been indulged in selling the expired seeds in contravention of Section 7 of Seeds Act, 1966 and clause 8 (A) of Seeds (Control) Order 1983.

3.

It appears, Sri Ramidi Venkat Reddy S/o.Sathi Reddy is the proprietor of both firms i.e., Ms. Ankitha Seeds Traders and Ms.Ankitha Seeds Centre. As he has suffered proceedings under Section 7 of the Seeds Act, his renewal application was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Agriculture, on 05.12.2018. Even before the ink is dried in the said appeal, this writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of rejecting the renewal application. 4.

A prima-facie reading of the letter impugned would show that having regard to the orders passed on selling expired seeds by Ankitha Seeds Centre, owned by Ramidi Venkat Reddy, renewal is rejected. It is not the case of petitioner that the District Agriculture Officer is not competent to take such a

- 3 - decision and having availed the remedy of appeal, petitioner could not have rushed to this Court a day later contending that the order is vitiated.

5.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 05.12.2018. 6.

As the appeal was preferred only on 05.12.2018, by the time the Writ is filed, it cannot be said that there is delay, more so, inordinate delay in disposing of the appeal preferred by the petitioner in order to direct the appellate authority to consider the same and pass orders expeditiously.

7.

Thus, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the appeal pending before the appellate authority, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 10th December, 2018 Rds