M/S Ehsan Agro Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory … v. The Appellate Authority/Director of Agriculture U.P. Krishi Bhawan Lko. and another

Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anuj Garg, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 17.09.2025, passed by the appellate authority under Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic and Mixed Compounds) Control Order, 1985, whereby the petitioner's request for testing of a spare sample has been turned down.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in manufacturing ply wood. It claims to have purchased technical grade urea N 46% as an intermediary product for processing of ply wood from M/s Manisha Trading Company Delhi on tax invoices dated 06.04.2025 and 20.06.2025. 2 WRIC No. - 10566 of 2025

4. On 09.06.2025, the opposite party no.2 District Agricultural Officer inspected the petitioner’s factory. Form-J filled up at the time of collecting the sample mentions the “Batch number and date of manufacture” as 25.10.2025. The sample passed the test. The District Agricultural Officer again inspected the petitioner’s factory on

18.06.2025 and drew samples. Form-J filled up on 18.06.2025, again mentions the “Batch number and date of manufacture” as 25.10.2024, which is the same as the batch number and date of manufacture mentioned in the earlier Form-J dated 09.06.2025, but this time the samples has failed the test and the report stated that there was neem oil content in the sample, which indicated that it was agricultural grade urea and not technical grade urea.

5. The samples were drawn in triplicate, one of which was sent for testing, one was kept with the opposite party no.2 and the third sample is with the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application for testing the spare sample that is kept with it but the request has been turned down by means the impugned order dated 17.09.2025.

6. Sri Sanjeev Kumar Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that as per the entries made in Form-J at the time of taking samples on 09.06.2025 and 18.06.2025, there was no difference in the batch no. and date of manufacture of the substance of which the samples were drawn on the two dates, yet the sample taken on 09.06.2025 has passed the test whereas the sample drawn on 18.06.2025 has failed the test. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that drawing of two samples of substance manufactured on the same date and getting two contradictory reports has necessitated retest of the spare samples drawn at the time of inspection on 18.06.2025 and kept with the petitioner.

7. Per contra, Sri Anuj Garg, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has submitted on the basis of written instructions provided by the District Agriculture Officer, Gorakhpur, that the 3 WRIC No. - 10566 of 2025 petitioner is neither dealer, nor manufacturer, nor importer, nor pool handling agency nor marketer and therefore he is not covered under Order 28-B of Control Order. A copy of the written instructions are taken on record.

8. The Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985 provides restriction of sales/ use of fertiliser in Clause 25(1) thereof which provides that:-

25. Restriction on Sale/Use of Fertilisers (1) No person shall, except with the prior permission of the Central Government and subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by such Government, sell or use fertiliser, for purposes other than fertilisation of crops; soils and Provided that the price of fertilisers permitted for sale for industrial use shall be price, excluding all subsidies at the production, import, handling or on sale for agricultural consumers; increasing productivity of Provided further that wherever customs or excise duties are chargeable, these may be added to the price so fixed; (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subclause (1), no prior permission for use of fertiliser for industrial purposes shall be necessary when the fertiliser for such purposes is purchased from the industrial dealer possessing a valid certificate of registration granted under clause 9. (3) …” Proceedings have been drawn against the petitioner alleging that it was using agricultural grade urea for industrial purpose in violation of the provision contained in Clause 25 (1) of the control order. Clause 25(1) of the control order does not contain an absolute prohibition against sale/ use of fertiliser for purposes other than fertilization of soil 4 WRIC No. - 10566 of 2025 and increasing productivity of crops and it only puts a rider that this can only be done with prior permission of the Government.

9. Clause 25(2) of the control order provides that no prior permission for use of fertiliser for industrial purposes shall be necessary, when the fertiliser has been purchased from an industrial dealer possessing a valid certificate of registration granted under Clause 9.

10. The petitioner has purchased fertiliser from M/s Manisha Trading Company through tax invoices. There is no allegation that M/s Manisha Trading Company is not an industrial dealer possessing a valid certificate of registration granted under Clause 9.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in numerous other similar matters this court has issued directions for retesting the sample, three of such orders have been annexed with the petition as Annexures No.11, 12 and 13. In response to this submission, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the point which has been submitted by him has not been dealt with in any of the previous orders and those orders do not deal with the right of an end user to seek retest of the third sample.

12. Clause 28 B of the Control Order provides as follows: - "28 B. sample drawn by the Inspector (1) Out of the three samples collected by the Fertiliser Inspectors, one sample shall be given to the dealer or importer or manufacturer or pool handling agency or marketer, as the case may be and the second sample shall be sent to the in-charge of the laboratory notified under item (b) of sub- clause (1) of clause 29 and the third sample shall be kept in the custody of designated authority. (2) In case the sample shall be drawn by the Fertiliser Inspector of the Central Government or by the State Fertiliser Inspector during joint inspection, out of three 5 WRIC No. - 10566 of 2025 samples, one sample shall be given to the dealer or importer or manufacturer or pool handling agency or marketer, as the case may be, and the second sample shall be sent for analysis through the Central Coding Centre to any of the Regional Fertiliser Quality Control Laboratory at Chennai, Mumbai or Kalyani and the third sample shall be kept in the custody of the In-charge of such Central Coding Centre. (3) In case the sample is reported as non-standard then within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of the report, the dealer or manufacturer or importer or pool handling agency or marketer, as the case may be, shall apply to the designated authority appointed by the State Government under clause 28 A of the said Order or to the in charge of the Central Coding Centre in case where the sample is drawn by the Centralfertiliser Inspector for re-testing along with the prescribed fee and the sample provided to him by the Fertiliser Inspector. (4) The designated authority of the State Government or the in charge Central Coding Centre of the Central Government, as the case may be, shall immediately send any of the two samples that is one submitted by the dealer or manufacturer or pool handling agency or importer or marketer and other lying in its custody to the National Test House, Ghaziabad Coding centre for testing at any of its Centre at Kolkata, Mumbai, Chennai, Jaipur and Ghaziabad for second analysis. (5) The report of National Test House shall be treated as final and in case there is variance in first and second analysis report that is the sample reported as non- standard in different parameters, then the designated authority of state Government or the In-charge of Coding Centre, as the case may be, shall suo motto send the sample lying in their possession for third analysis at Central Fertiliser Quality Control and Training Institute, Faridabad and the analysis report of such Institute shall be treated as final: Provided that in case where the dealer or manufacturer or pool handling agency, as the case may be, does not 6 WRIC No. - 10566 of 2025 apply within the stipulated period of fifteen days under sub-clause (3) of clause 28B, then the report of first analysis shall be final: Provided further that in case where the sample reports that is first analysis report and second analysis report are declared as nonstandard in a common parameter, in such case, there shall not any third analysis and the report of the second analysis shall be treated as final."

13. Although clause 28-B (3) makes a mention of retest of non standard samples on the request of dealer or manufacturer or importer or pool handling agency or marketer, as the case may be as normally these categories of persons are affected by the provisions of the Control order and, therefore, these categories are mentioned in Clause 28-B (3). However, the true intent of the aforesaid provision appears to be to order retesting at the request of any affected person and when a user is also affected by the proceedings and samples have been drawn on different dates on his premises, one of which has passed earlier and the sample drawn subsequently has failed, it becomes very necessary that the samples be sent for retesting.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already deposited the requisite fee for retesting and it will not cause any financial burden on the public exchequer.

15. In these circumstances, the petitioner's request deserves acceptance.

16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

17. The impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the appellate authority/Director of Agriculture, U.P. Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside. The appellate authority/ Driector of Agriculture, U.P. Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow is directed to send the duplicate sample kept with the 7 WRIC No. - 10566 of 2025 petitioner, for testing from an authorized lab and to proceed after receipt of the test report. November 12, 2025 Ram/Pradeep (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anuj Garg, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 17.09.2025, passed by the appellate authority under Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic and Mixed Compounds) Control Order, 1985, whereby the petitioner's request for testing of a spare sample has been turned down.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in manufacturing ply wood. It claims to have purchased technical grade urea N 46% as an intermediary product for processing of ply wood from M/s Manisha Trading Company Delhi on tax invoices dated 06.04.2025 and 20.06.2025. 2 WRIC No. - 10566 of 2025

4. On 09.06.2025, the opposite party no.2 District Agricultural Officer inspected the petitioner’s factory. Form-J filled up at the time of collecting the sample mentions the “Batch number and date of manufacture” as 25.10.2025. The sample passed the test. The District Agricultural Officer again inspected the petitioner’s factory on

18.06.2025 and drew samples. Form-J filled up on 18.06.2025, again mentions the “Batch number and date of manufacture” as 25.10.2024, which is the same as the batch number and date of manufacture mentioned in the earlier Form-J dated 09.06.2025, but this time the samples has failed the test and the report stated that there was neem oil content in the sample, which indicated that it was agricultural grade urea and not technical grade urea.

5. The samples were drawn in triplicate, one of which was sent for testing, one was kept with the opposite party no.2 and the third sample is with the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application for testing the spare sample that is kept with it but the request has been turned down by means the impugned order dated 17.09.2025.

6. Sri Sanjeev Kumar Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that as per the entries made in Form-J at the time of taking samples on 09.06.2025 and 18.06.2025, there was no difference in the batch no. and date of manufacture of the substance of which the samples were drawn on the two dates, yet the sample taken on 09.06.2025 has passed the test whereas the sample drawn on 18.06.2025 has failed the test. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that drawing of two samples of substance manufactured on the same date and getting two contradictory reports has necessitated retest of the spare samples drawn at the time of inspection on 18.06.2025 and kept with the petitioner.

7. Per contra, Sri Anuj Garg, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has submitted on the basis of written instructions provided by the District Agriculture Officer, Gorakhpur, that the 3 WRIC No. - 10566 of 2025 petitioner is neither dealer, nor manufacturer, nor importer, nor pool handling agency nor marketer and therefore he is not covered under Order 28-B of Control Order. A copy of the written instructions are taken on record.

8. The Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order, 1985 provides restriction of sales/ use of fertiliser in Clause 25(1) thereof which provides that:-

25. Restriction on Sale/Use of Fertilisers (1) No person shall, except with the prior permission of the Central Government and subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by such Government, sell or use fertiliser, for purposes other than fertilisation of crops; soils and Provided that the price of fertilisers permitted for sale for industrial use shall be price, excluding all subsidies at the production, import, handling or on sale for agricultural consumers; increasing productivity of Provided further that wherever customs or excise duties are chargeable, these may be added to the price so fixed; (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subclause (1), no prior permission for use of fertiliser for industrial purposes shall be necessary when the fertiliser for such purposes is purchased from the industrial dealer possessing a valid certificate of registration granted under clause 9. (3) …” Proceedings have been drawn against the petitioner alleging that it was using agricultural grade urea for industrial purpose in violation of the provision contained in Clause 25 (1) of the control order. Clause 25(1) of the control order does not contain an absolute prohibition against sale/ use of fertiliser for purposes other than fertilization of soil 4 WRIC No. - 10566 of 2025 and increasing productivity of crops and it only puts a rider that this can only be done with prior permission of the Government.

9. Clause 25(2) of the control order provides that no prior permission for use of fertiliser for industrial purposes shall be necessary, when the fertiliser has been purchased from an industrial dealer possessing a valid certificate of registration granted under Clause 9.

10. The petitioner has purchased fertiliser from M/s Manisha Trading Company through tax invoices. There is no allegation that M/s Manisha Trading Company is not an industrial dealer possessing a valid certificate of registration granted under Clause 9.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in numerous other similar matters this court has issued directions for retesting the sample, three of such orders have been annexed with the petition as Annexures No.11, 12 and 13. In response to this submission, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the point which has been submitted by him has not been dealt with in any of the previous orders and those orders do not deal with the right of an end user to seek retest of the third sample.

12. Clause 28 B of the Control Order provides as follows: - "28 B. sample drawn by the Inspector (1) Out of the three samples collected by the Fertiliser Inspectors, one sample shall be given to the dealer or importer or manufacturer or pool handling agency or marketer, as the case may be and the second sample shall be sent to the in-charge of the laboratory notified under item (b) of sub- clause (1) of clause 29 and the third sample shall be kept in the custody of designated authority. (2) In case the sample shall be drawn by the Fertiliser Inspector of the Central Government or by the State Fertiliser Inspector during joint inspection, out of three 5 WRIC No. - 10566 of 2025 samples, one sample shall be given to the dealer or importer or manufacturer or pool handling agency or marketer, as the case may be, and the second sample shall be sent for analysis through the Central Coding Centre to any of the Regional Fertiliser Quality Control Laboratory at Chennai, Mumbai or Kalyani and the third sample shall be kept in the custody of the In-charge of such Central Coding Centre. (3) In case the sample is reported as non-standard then within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of the report, the dealer or manufacturer or importer or pool handling agency or marketer, as the case may be, shall apply to the designated authority appointed by the State Government under clause 28 A of the said Order or to the in charge of the Central Coding Centre in case where the sample is drawn by the Centralfertiliser Inspector for re-testing along with the prescribed fee and the sample provided to him by the Fertiliser Inspector. (4) The designated authority of the State Government or the in charge Central Coding Centre of the Central Government, as the case may be, shall immediately send any of the two samples that is one submitted by the dealer or manufacturer or pool handling agency or importer or marketer and other lying in its custody to the National Test House, Ghaziabad Coding centre for testing at any of its Centre at Kolkata, Mumbai, Chennai, Jaipur and Ghaziabad for second analysis. (5) The report of National Test House shall be treated as final and in case there is variance in first and second analysis report that is the sample reported as non- standard in different parameters, then the designated authority of state Government or the In-charge of Coding Centre, as the case may be, shall suo motto send the sample lying in their possession for third analysis at Central Fertiliser Quality Control and Training Institute, Faridabad and the analysis report of such Institute shall be treated as final: Provided that in case where the dealer or manufacturer or pool handling agency, as the case may be, does not 6 WRIC No. - 10566 of 2025 apply within the stipulated period of fifteen days under sub-clause (3) of clause 28B, then the report of first analysis shall be final: Provided further that in case where the sample reports that is first analysis report and second analysis report are declared as nonstandard in a common parameter, in such case, there shall not any third analysis and the report of the second analysis shall be treated as final."

13. Although clause 28-B (3) makes a mention of retest of non standard samples on the request of dealer or manufacturer or importer or pool handling agency or marketer, as the case may be as normally these categories of persons are affected by the provisions of the Control order and, therefore, these categories are mentioned in Clause 28-B (3). However, the true intent of the aforesaid provision appears to be to order retesting at the request of any affected person and when a user is also affected by the proceedings and samples have been drawn on different dates on his premises, one of which has passed earlier and the sample drawn subsequently has failed, it becomes very necessary that the samples be sent for retesting.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already deposited the requisite fee for retesting and it will not cause any financial burden on the public exchequer.

15. In these circumstances, the petitioner's request deserves acceptance.

16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

17. The impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the appellate authority/Director of Agriculture, U.P. Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside. The appellate authority/ Driector of Agriculture, U.P. Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow is directed to send the duplicate sample kept with the 7 WRIC No. - 10566 of 2025 petitioner, for testing from an authorized lab and to proceed after receipt of the test report. November 12, 2025 Ram/Pradeep (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench