STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS versus MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 924 · Decided: 22-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
v.
MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No.6564 of 2019)
AUGUST 22, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Seeds Act, 1966 – Seeds Rules, 1968 – Seeds (Control) Order,
1983 – Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply,
Distribution, Sale and Fixation of sale price) Act, 2009 –
Respondent-Company was processing cotton and non-cotton seeds
of different varieties in its unit – According to respondent, all such
processed seeds were stored in the storage/godown attached to the
processing unit for transportation to different places – Case of the
appellant was that the respondent not having a valid licence for
storage or sale of seeds in the said processing unit had committed
gross violation of the law – Consequent to which the seed inspector
had sealed the godowns of the respondent-company – Writ petition
was filed by the respondent – High Court ordered to de-seal all the
godowns of the respondent Company and held that the packed and
labelled seeds were kept in the unit only for further transportation
and no separate licence was required to be obtained for storage of
seeds in the godown attached to unit for such transportation  –
Further, High Court held that the power of sealing was not available
to the appellant-authorities – On appeal, held: During the inspection
of the unit, it was found that packaging and labelling machines
were kept and respondent was carrying out the operations of
“packaging and labelling” in the said unit –  As per r. 2(j) of seeds
Rules, 1968, “processing” does not include operations such as
“packaging” and “labelling” –  For any activity of labelling and
packaging of the seeds and storing the same, the respondent was
required to obtain separate licence under the Seeds Rules, 1968
and the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply,
Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2010 –
Admittedly, respondent had no licence for its godown either as
“storage of seeds” or “sale of seeds” – In the absence of such, the
activity of labelling and packaging of seeds at godown was illegal
[2019] 12  S.C.R. 924
 924
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
925
– Insofar as power of sealing of the appellant authorities are
concerned, s.14(1)(e) of the Seeds Act confers vide powers upon
the seed inspector – Since the seed inspector has to ensure that the
provisions of the Act are complied by the person who has obtained
the licence, in case of non-compliance, in rare and exceptional cases,
the seed inspector has power to seal the premises – However, in
such a case he has to record grounds for his belief that how mere
search and seizure may not be sufficient to prevent further
contraventions – In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
action of the seed inspector and the authorities cannot be said to
be arbitrary – Therefore, judgment of the High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1. Respondent has obtained licence only under
the Factories Act for its unit. Admittedly, the respondent does
not have licence in Form ‘B’ of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 to
carry on the business of “dealer in seeds”.  The only activity
legally permissible to be conducted by the respondent at its
processing plant is “processing of seed”. During inspection, it
was noticed that packaging and labelling machines were kept and
respondent was carrying out the operations of “packaging and
labelling” in the unit.  For any activity of labelling and packaging
of the seeds and storing the same, the respondent is required to
obtain separate licence under the Seeds Rules, 1968 and the
Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution,
Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2010. In the absence of
such licence, the  activity of labelling and packaging qua the seeds
and the cotton seeds carried out at its godown attached with unit
by the respondent is illegal. [Para 24] [939-A-C]
2. From the search of the godown and also from the
statement of the authorized signatory of the respondent, it was
found that the respondent was not only carrying out the activity
of seed processing in godown; but also carrying on operations of
“packing” and “labelling” etc.  As per Rule 2(j) of Seeds Rules,
1968, “processing” does not include operations such as
“packaging” and “labelling”.  The activities of the respondent
like packaging, pricing and labelling of various seeds in plant
therefore cannot be said to be falling within the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.