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 – 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 meaning of “processing” under Rule 2(j) of the Seeds Rules, 1968. The High Court erred in brushing aside the materials produced before the High Court and the huge quantity of seeds of various kinds found to have been stocked in random stake in various godowns of the unit. When the authorised signatory present in the plant is said to have submitted the signed document dated 10.12.2017 stating that packed seeds stocked at the unit were ready for dispatch and the seeds are packed for sale, the High Court, erred in saying that the seeds packed and labelled are meant for transportation for which no licence was required. [Para 25] [939-D-F]
3. By a conjoint reading of Sections 14 and 15 of the Seeds Act and Rule 23 of the Seeds Rules, 1968 and various other provisions, it is clear that the Seed Inspector is conferred with wide powers coupled with duties. In terms of Section 14(1)(c) of the Seeds Act, 1966, Clause 13(d) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and Section 7(2) of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009, the Seed Inspector is empowered to enter and search any premises, draw samples, seize or detain the stock of the seeds in respect of which he has reason to believe that a contravention of the provisions of the Act has been committed or is being committed. Under Rule 23 of the Seeds Rules, 1968, Seed Inspector can issue and stop sale order in case the seed in question contravenes the provision of the relevant Act and Rules (Form III). The Seed Inspector is empowered to enter and search any premises or break-open the door or any container, to examine any records, register, documents of the seed dealer and also to seize the seeds stock(s) and/or records.[Para 32] [943-A-C]
4. There is, of course, no express provision empowering the Seed Inspector to seal any place, where there is contravention of the provisions of the Act. But, such power to seal the place is deemed to be vested with the Seed Inspector in terms of Section 14(1)(e) of the Seeds Act which empowers the Seed Inspector to exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act or any rule made thereunder. The provisions of Seeds Act, 1966 and Seeds Rules, 1968 provide for various safeguards that the Seed Inspector does not exceed his authority. [Para 33] [943-D-E, G]
5. The Seed Inspector must be satisfied or has reason to believe that an offence under the Act has been committed or is being committed and that exercise of such power of sealing is necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act or the rules made thereunder. Since the exercise of power to seal in exceptional circumstances is only to carry out the purposes of the Act or the rules made thereunder, it is necessary that before the Seed Inspector proceeds to take action of sealing the premises, he has to record grounds for his belief as to how and in what manner the provisions of the Seeds Act and the rules made thereunder have been contravened and how mere search and seizure may not be sufficient to prevent further contravention. The grounds for his belief so recorded in writing has to be forthwith communicated to the Magistrate in terms of Section 15(5) of the Seeds Act, 1966 and also to their immediate official superior. This would ensure that the Seed Inspector does not exceed his authority or that power to seal is not misused. [Para 35] [944-E-G]
6. In the present case, since the respondent was found to have stocked genetically modified seed of RRF Hybrid Cotton which may include transgenic varieties, for which the approval of Genetical Engineering Approval Committee is required, is also not submitted by the respondent. In that view, the authorities searched and inspected the godown but the seed material lying there in a voluminous stock was not appropriately segregated/staked and also the information was not furnished to inspection team by plant in-charge. Despite constant follow-up in writing and through oral instructions, the plant in-charge did not provide stock position of seeds as expected by the Seed Inspector and also not submitted the certified copy of licence having permission to stock the seeds at godown. The respondent’s godown was sealed by 07:00 pm on 15.12.2017 after giving sufficient opportunity. In such facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the Seed Inspector and the authorities in sealing the plant cannot be said arbitrary. [Para 36] [944-H; 945-A-C]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.