S Krishna Sales Corporation Thru. Proprietor Bhudutt Sharma v. The Appellate Authrity

1. Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Surendra Kumar Singh, the learned State Counsel.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of a show cause notice dated 26.09.2025 & 17.09.2025 issued by the District Agricultural Officer, Kanpur Dehat and an appellate order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the appellate authority under Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed)(Control) Order 1985 whereby petitioner's request for re-test of samples has been rejected.

3. The petitioner is an importer of technical grade urea- 46% for which he possess the import licence by Government of India and for this purpose, the petitioner imports technical grade urea 46%.

4. On 11.08.2025, District Agricultural Officer, Kanpur Dehat inspected the premises of company to whom petitioner supplied goods and collected samples. The samples were drawn in triplicate and one sample was sent for testing and has failed the test as the test report states that there was oil content in the sample.

5. The petitioner has requested re-test of sample as per the provisions contained in Rule 28 (B) of Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed)(Control) Order, 1985 which provides as follows:- 2 WRIC No. 11426 of 2025 "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 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 Fertilizer 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 3 WRIC No. 11426 of 2025 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 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."

6. The petitioner's request for re-testing has been rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that this request cannot be accepted under Clause 32 (A) of the Control Order which provides for filing an appeal at the State Government level.

7. The petitioner had stated in the memo of appeal that Clause 28(B)(4) of the Control Order contains provision for re-testing of second sample. The petitioner has deposited the prescribed fee for re-test on 19.09.2025 but the Joint Director, Kanpur Mandal is not collecting samples for re-testing. The request for re-test was made as per the provisions contained in Clause 28(B)(4) of the Control Order and not under Clause 32(A) which contains provision for filing an appeal.

8. It is settled law that appeal is continuation of original proceedings and the appellate authority has all powers of the original authority. In case the original authority can order re-testing under Clause 28(B)(4) of the Control Order, the appellate authority also has the same power and the refusal of the appellate authority to order re-testing merely for the reason that the appeal under Clause 32(A) of the Control Order which does not contain any provision for re-testing, is unsustainable in law.

9. The learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the basis of 4 WRIC No. 11426 of 2025 written instructions provided to him, which are taken on record and which reiterates the stand of appellate authority.

10. Accordingly, in the light of above discussions and elaborate judgment and orders dated passed by this Court in Writ C No.10566 of 2025 and Writ C No.11024 of 2025, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the petitioner's request for re-test of samples is set-aside. The petitioner's request for re-test of samples under 28(B)(4) of the Control Order, 1985 is allowed. The Opposite parties are directed to collect a spare sample kept with the petitioner within a period of one week from today and get it re- tested and proceed accordingly. December 5, 2025 V. Sinha (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Surendra Kumar Singh, the learned State Counsel.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of a show cause notice dated 26.09.2025 & 17.09.2025 issued by the District Agricultural Officer, Kanpur Dehat and an appellate order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the appellate authority under Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed)(Control) Order 1985 whereby petitioner's request for re-test of samples has been rejected.

3. The petitioner is an importer of technical grade urea- 46% for which he possess the import licence by Government of India and for this purpose, the petitioner imports technical grade urea 46%.

4. On 11.08.2025, District Agricultural Officer, Kanpur Dehat inspected the premises of company to whom petitioner supplied goods and collected samples. The samples were drawn in triplicate and one sample was sent for testing and has failed the test as the test report states that there was oil content in the sample.

5. The petitioner has requested re-test of sample as per the provisions contained in Rule 28 (B) of Fertilizer (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed)(Control) Order, 1985 which provides as follows:- 2 WRIC No. 11426 of 2025 "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 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 Fertilizer 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 3 WRIC No. 11426 of 2025 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 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."

6. The petitioner's request for re-testing has been rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that this request cannot be accepted under Clause 32 (A) of the Control Order which provides for filing an appeal at the State Government level.

7. The petitioner had stated in the memo of appeal that Clause 28(B)(4) of the Control Order contains provision for re-testing of second sample. The petitioner has deposited the prescribed fee for re-test on 19.09.2025 but the Joint Director, Kanpur Mandal is not collecting samples for re-testing. The request for re-test was made as per the provisions contained in Clause 28(B)(4) of the Control Order and not under Clause 32(A) which contains provision for filing an appeal.

8. It is settled law that appeal is continuation of original proceedings and the appellate authority has all powers of the original authority. In case the original authority can order re-testing under Clause 28(B)(4) of the Control Order, the appellate authority also has the same power and the refusal of the appellate authority to order re-testing merely for the reason that the appeal under Clause 32(A) of the Control Order which does not contain any provision for re-testing, is unsustainable in law.

9. The learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the basis of 4 WRIC No. 11426 of 2025 written instructions provided to him, which are taken on record and which reiterates the stand of appellate authority.

10. Accordingly, in the light of above discussions and elaborate judgment and orders dated passed by this Court in Writ C No.10566 of 2025 and Writ C No.11024 of 2025, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the petitioner's request for re-test of samples is set-aside. The petitioner's request for re-test of samples under 28(B)(4) of the Control Order, 1985 is allowed. The Opposite parties are directed to collect a spare sample kept with the petitioner within a period of one week from today and get it re- tested and proceed accordingly. December 5, 2025 V. Sinha (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench