Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 | Allahabad High Court Says DM Has No Power To Supervise Fertilizer Distribution
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the District Magistrate (DM) is not vested with power under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, to act as a supervising authority for the distribution of fertilizers.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla made the observation while hearing a writ petition concerning the supply of Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) to petitioner-Marihan Agro Farmer Producer Company Limited in Mirzapur.
The petitioner had sought directions concerning the supply of fertilizer after it had demanded 100 tonnes of DAP but was supplied only 45 tonnes. It claimed that fertilizer was required during the Kharif season and the shortage would adversely affect its produce.
The Court considered the issue of the District Magistrate's powers after perusing the personal affidavit filed by the DM Mirzapur.
The DM admitted that he had not been vested with any power under the Fertilizer Control Order to act as a "supervising authority for the distribution of fertilizers", particularly with authority to direct the Deputy Director of Agriculture in the matter.
The DM, however, pointed out that administrative directions had been issued from time to time by the Principal Secretary, Agriculture, under which he had been made chairman of a committee comprising other officers to ensure smooth availability of fertilizers within the district.
The affidavit referred to directions dated July 23, 2026, which provided for district-level arrangements for advance stocking, availability, distribution and review of fertilizer stocks. The directions also provided for a committee under the chairmanship of the DM to ensure smooth availability of fertilizers within the district.
Taking into account the communications issued by the Principal Secretary, the Bench observed thus:
"From a perusal of the Government Orders dated 10.03.2026 and 23.07.2026...we find that for one, these are not Government Orders properly so called".
The Court noted that the communications had not been issued in the exercise of any statutory power vested in the Secretary, even on behalf of the Government to issue such directions under the Fertilizer Control Order.
It consequently held that the directions contained in the communications dated March 10 and July 23 were "prima facie fit to be ignored".
The Bench also considered the practice of citizens approaching the District Magistrate with grievances concerning other departments. The Court noted that citizens, including farmers, often petition the DM regarding grievances that may be "quite unrelated to his office".
The District Magistrate had stated that, when faced with such representations, he forwards them to the officer concerned in the relevant department.
The Court, however, observed that a practice should be adopted that would also educate the public over time. It said:
"The better course, therefore, would be to direct the return of such representations/complaints related to other departments to the applicant with an endorsement that he/she should present it to the appropriate officers rather than forwarding it to the concerned department or officer".
The Bench explained that forwarding a complaint by the DM to the concerned department "partakes of the flavor of some kind of supervision exercised by the District Magistrate", which would not be the case if the complaint were returned to the applicant.
Regarding the petitioner's grievance of being supplied with only 45 tonnes against the demand of 100 tonnes of DAP, the bench noted that a prima facie case is made out and hence, a notice was issued
On the connected stay application, the Court issued an interim mandamus to the Deputy Director of Agriculture and the District Agriculture Officer, Mirzapur, to ensure the supply of 100 tonnes of DAP, after adjusting any quantity already supplied, according to the demand raised by the petitioner, or to show cause by filing an affidavit.
The respondents were granted two weeks to file their counter affidavit and the matter was listed for September 1, 2026.
Case title - Marihan Agro Farmer Producer Company Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others