Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Ban On Non-Notified Varieties Of Hybrid Paddy Seeds; Quashes Prohibition On Notified Kinds
|The Petitioners were either the companies involved in the business of production/trading of seeds or the farmers aggrieved by the blanket ban imposed by the State Government upon use of the hybrid paddy seeds.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the ban on hybrid paddy seeds which belong to the non-notified varieties but quashed the prohibition on the use of notified kinds of hybrid paddy seeds in the State of Punjab.
The Court was deciding a batch of Writ Petitions, challenging the administrative orders passed by the Department of Agriculture, Punjab, by which a ban was imposed on the use of the paddy variety PUSA-44 and all types of hybrid paddy seeds (notified and non-notified kinds or varieties).
A Single Bench of Justice Kuldeep Tiwari held, “The administrative order dated 04.04.2019, which was partially modified vide administrative order dated 10.04.2019, thereby imposing prohibition only upon the use of those kinds or varieties of hybrid paddy seeds in the State of Punjab which are non-notified varieties, while allowing the use of kind or variety of hybrid seeds notified by the Government of India under the Act of 1966, is within the sphere of the Act of 1966 and passes the test of legality. … The administrative order dated 07.04.2025, whereby prohibition has been imposed upon the use of notified kinds or varieties of hybrid paddy seeds in the State of Punjab, does not pass the test of legality.”
The Bench said that the State Government is not vested with any power to impose a ban upon notified kind or variety of hybrid seeds, which have legal force on account of Section 5 of the Seeds Act, 1966.
Senior Advocates Munisha Gandhi and Gurminder Singh appeared on behalf of the Petitioners while Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Satya Pal Jain and Advocate General (AG) Maninderjit Singh Bedi appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioners before the Court were either the companies involved in the business of production/trading of seeds or the farmers aggrieved by the blanket ban imposed by the State Government upon use of the hybrid paddy seeds. In 2019, the Director of Department of Agriculture through issuing an administrative order imposed a prohibition on the use of all varieties of hybrid seeds in the State of Punjab. Subsequently, by an amended administrative order, the prohibition was partially modified so as to permit the sowing of only such varieties of hybrid paddy seeds as have been notified by the Government of India specifically for the State of Punjab, while maintaining the prohibition in respect of all non-notified varieties.
In April this year, another administrative order was issued, thereby imposing a prohibition on the use of hybrid paddy seeds, including both notified and non-notified varieties. The legality of these administrative orders was assailed in the Writ Petitions preferred before the High Court. As per the impugned administrative orders, the ban was imposed on the recommendations made by the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, observed, “… it becomes clearly established that the Act of 1949 is an ‘existing State law’, as defined under Rule 2(1)(d) of the Order of 1950, and therefore, falls within the sphere of ‘existing law’, as defined under Rule 2(1)(e) of the ibid Order. … the Act falls within the ambit of ‘existing law’, as defined in Article 366(10), and continues to remain in force by dint of the Order of 1950 and the Order of 1951.”
The Court noted that Article 254 gets attracted only when both the Central and the State legislations have been enacted on any of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, and there exists a conflict or both occupy the same field.
“Therefore, the question of repugnancy, by the operation of Article 254, between the Act of 1949 and the Act of 1966 does not arise at all. … A conjoint reading of Section 2(9), Section 3 and Section 5 of the Act of 1966 makes it vividly clear that if the Central Government, after consultation with the Central Seed Committee, is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to regulate the quality of seed of any kind or variety to be sold for the purpose of agriculture, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare such kind or variety to be a notified kind or variety for the purposes of this Act and different kinds or varieties may be notified for different States or for different areas thereof”, it added.
The Court further noted that the State Government is not vested with any power to impose a ban upon notified kind or variety of hybrid seeds, which have legal force on account of Section 5 of the Act of 1966.
“What is more important, at this stage, is that the State Government has, in fact, not only appointed the Central/State Seed Committee Inspectors etc., but also following the provisions of the Act of 1966”, it said.
The Court also observed that the State Government is following the mechanism for regulating seeds as per the Central Government enactments, i.e. the Act of 1966, Rules of 1968 and the Seeds Order.
“Consequently, this Court can easily infer that, despite the Act of 1966 being in force, the Act of 1949 has been dug out and invoked by the State Government merely to lend legal force to its decision to impose a ban on the use of notified kind or variety of hybrid seeds”, it remarked.
The Court referred to the legal maxim “LEGES POSTERIORES PRIORES CONTRARIAS ABROGANT” which rules that “later laws repeal earlier laws inconsistent therewith” and the elementary rule is that if a new enactment has come on same subject, which governs the wider sphere, the earlier enactment must give place to the later, if the two cannot reconcile.
“… the Act of 1949 has not been given effect to by the State Government; rather it created authorities under the Act of 1966 for its implementation. Therefore, the Act of 1949 shall give way to the Act of 1966. … It is well established principle of interpretation that when two laws relate to the same subject, the construction of earlier law may be adjusted in the light of the later one, so as to make them consistent, unless there is an irreconcilable conflict. The Latin legal maxim ‘non est novum ut priores leges ad posteriores trahantur’ rules that ‘it is not new that earlier laws are drawn to conform to later ones’.”, it noted.
Conclusion
The Court was of the view that the East Punjab Improved Seeds and Seedlings Act, 1949 is a pre Constitutional Act, whereas the Seeds Act, 1966 is a post-Constitutional Act, and, it has been enacted by the Parliament by having concurrent power in view of Entry No.33 in the Concurrent List and therefore, the State Government cannot pass any conflicting administrative orders to nullify any act undertaken by dint of the 1966 Act.
“… this Court has no hesitation in holding that the imposition of prohibition for use of ‘notified kind or variety of hybrid seeds’, by dint of Section 5 of the Act of 1966, does not pass the test of legality, hence deserves to be quashed. … the State Government cannot issue conflicting directions to prohibit the user thereof. As already observed, the subject ‘seeds’ falls in the Concurrent List, hence both Legislature of State and Parliament have power to enact laws. With these observations, this Court can safely conclude that Article 162 does not come to rescue the impugned administrative order dated 07.04.2025”, it observed.
The Court, therefore, concluded that non-notified seeds do not assume legal sanctity as assumed by notified seeds under the 1966 Act and in this case, the prohibition has rightly been imposed by the State Government upon the non-notified seeds, and this power is conferred upon the State Government by the 1966 Act and Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the ban on non-notified varieties of hybrid paddy seeds and quashed the prohibition on the use of notified ones.
Cause Title- Federation of Seed Industry of India v. State of Punjab and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:105915)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocates Munisha Gandhi, Gurminder Singh, Advocates Vaibhav Sharma, Karmanbir Singh, Harish Mehla, Randeep Singh Gill, and Nitish Bansal.
Respondents: ASG Satya Pal Jain, AG Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Addl. AG Chanchal K. Singla, DAGs Pardeep Bajaj, Rajeev Madaan, Advocates Sushant Kareer, Sunny Saggar, and Omesh Garg.