[AP Cotton Seeds Act & Rules] Telangana HC Upholds Validity Of Provisions Constituting Committee To Gauge Compensation Payable To Farmers Over Bad Yield Of Seeds

The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of section 5(1)b and section 7 of the the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 as well as Rules 27, 28 and 29 of the associated Rules, 2007.

The order was passed by the division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti in a batch of Writ Petitions preferred by Nuziveedu Seeds Limited (a Company engaged in the business of research, development, production, marketing, and sale of seeds) wherein the provisions of the Seed Act and Rules were challenged as unconstitutional.

The main grievance in the petitions was, that the committee constituted to gauge the amount of compensation payable to the farmers on account of losses incurred by them, due to bad quality cotton seeds purported to breach the principles of separation of powers and gave judicial powers of adjudication and assessment of compensation to its executive body.

The Bench, after analysing the intent behind the statute, concluded, that our Constitution (unlike the Australian Constitution) does not mandate strict separation of powers and many statutes delegate certain judicial functions to the Executive (and cited examples of the Works of Defence Act, Manoeuvres, Field Firing, and Artillery Practice Act, 1938, Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949, etc.)

Referring to the case of Associated Cement Companies Limited vs. P.N. Sharma, the Court noted that although the State transfers the judicial functions and powers to the Courts, it is not barred from transferring a portion of the judicial powers to a quasi-judicial Tribunal.

“The judicial functions and judicial powers are one of the essential attributes of a sovereign State and the State transfers its judicial functions and powers mainly to the Courts established by the Constitution, but that does not affect the competence of the State, by appropriate measures, to transfer a part of its judicial powers and functions to Tribunals by entrusting them the task of adjudicating upon special matters and disputes between the parties,” it said.

Background:

The Seed Act, only deals with cotton seeds and was introduced by the State Government in 2007, when the expression 'cotton seed' was deleted from the Essential Commodities Act, 2006. The State noticed a rampant surge in the exploitation of farmers by the cotton seed traders, resulting in debt traps, which compelled multiple farmers to end their lives.

As per the statute and Rules thereof, the Committee is to be constituted by the District Collector, the District Jt. Director of Agriculture, the District Horticultural Officer, the concerned crop Scientist, the Representative of farmers to be nominated by the District Collector and the Representative of Seed Growers at District Level to be nominated by the District Collector.

The Bench noted the vital importance of the committee for the quick assessment of the ground situation as the crop cycle of a cotton plant lasts only 120 days and about 80% of the farmers partake in growing crop. Additionally, the statute prescribed various stages at which compensation could be sought for and prescribed a time frame within which the compensation award was to be passed.

“The Act and the Rules provide for timelines to avoid delay in providing relief to the farmers who are subjected to loss by reason of poor germination or susceptibility to the pests and diseases or genetic impurity or non-adaptability of cotton seed. The Act and the Rules create a right as well as a liability. The Act empowers the District Level Committee to assess the compensation within the timelines provided therein. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Associated Cement Companies Limited (supra), the contention that the provisions of the impugned Act or Rules constitute either breach of separation of powers or give judicial powers of adjudication and assessment of compensation to the Executive Body is not worthy of acceptance.”

While dismissing the petitions and upholding the compensation awarded to the farmers, the Bench emphasized that any body entrusted with judicial function must act judicially.

W.P 34608 of 2012 & Batch

Counsel for petitioners: S.Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel.

Counsel for respondents: Senior Counsel, Mohammed Imran Khan, Additional Advocate General for the State of TS.

Click Here To Read/Download Order