Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v. Umesh Singh Chandan Singh Saddiwal

JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER The complainants/respondents are farmers growing crops such as sugarcane and banana etc. in their respective fields. The case of the complainants is that respondent-M/s Surana Irrigators, who is agent of the petitioner company, persuaded them to purchase Tissue Culture Banana Plantlets of the petitioner company, representing that they would be earning 240/- per banana plant within a year. According to the complainants, they planted the aforesaid tissue culture banana plantlets in their respective fields as per the guidance and instructions of respondent-M/s Surana Irrigators, incurring substantial expenditure on purchase of fertilizers and pesticides etc., but some plantlets did not grow, whereas some other got damaged. The matter was reported by them to the representative of the respondent-M/s Surana Irrigators but no relief was provided to the complainants, either by the petitioner company or by respondent-M/s Surana Irrigators. The complainants thereupon made complaint to the Agriculture Officer, Panchayant Samiti, Paranda followed by complaint to the District Agriculture Development Officer. The District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee visited their fields on 31.05.2008 and reported that the plantlets were defective. The complainants then approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate complaints, seeking compensation from the petitioner company and respondent-M/s Surana Irrigators.

2. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties. They however did not dispute that they had sold the tissue culture banana plantlets to the complainants. It was stated by the petitioner company that it had imported the said plantlets from Israil and was not responsible for the loss if any sustained by the complainants. It was also claimed by the petitioner, that it had not received any notice from the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee.

3. The District Forum held that the banana plantlets sold to the complainants were defective and therefore granted compensation to the complainants.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. Vide impugned order dated 12.01.2015, the State Commission dismissed the appeals, thereby upholding the order passed by the District Forum. Being aggrieved, the petitioner company is before us by way of these revision petitions.

5. The impugned orders have been assailed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner company primarily on the ground that the procedure prescribed under the Seeds Act was not followed by the committee, before it reported the plantlets to be defective. It was submitted that neither any notice of the inspection was served upon the petitioner company before carrying out the inspection nor were the plantlets sent to a laboratory for the purpose of testing and analysis. It was also submitted that the members of the committee not being the experts in the field, could not have held the plantlets to be defective. It was also pointed out that not all the members of the committee were present at the time of inspection and some of those who were alleged to be present had not signed the Panchnama.

6. During the course of arguments, one of the issue which came up for consideration was as to whether Tissue Culture Banana Plantlets are included in the expression Seed as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Seeds Act, 1966 or not. We therefore requested the Director, Indian Agricultural Research Institute at Pusa, New Delhi to depute a senior scientist to assist us in arriving at a just conclusion in this regard. Dr. D.K. Yadava from Indian Agricultural Research Institute appeared before us on 01.10.2015 and was examined. In his opinion tissue culture banana plantlets are seeds within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Seeds Act, 1966 since they are vegetatively propagated material of food crops. He told this Commission that the manual of Indian Minimum Seed Certification Standards issued by the Central Seed Certification Board, Department of Agriculture & Co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India has laid down the procedure and the standard parameters for production of banana by tissue culture. A copy of the aforesaid standard was submitted by him for perusal of this Commission. It transpired during the course of hearing on 20.10.2015 that National Certification System for Tissue Culture Raised Plants (NCS-TCP) was approved by the Department of Bio-Technology, Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India in October, 2006, and was revised from time to time. We therefore called for the said system from the Department of Science & Technology, Government of India. Shri Manok Kumar Modi, Scientist-D, Department of Bio-Technology, Ministry of Science & Technology appeared before us on 04.11.2015 and stated that there has been no change as far as the banana tissue culture standards and procedure and standard parameters for production of banana by tissue culture are concerned and the standard and parameters approved in October 2006 continue to be followed. He however stated that the aforesaid standard are recommendatory in nature and do not have mandate of law as far as the producers of tissue culture raised plantlets are concerned. He also informed that there is no penalty in law as far as Ministry of Science and Technology is concerned, if the aforesaid standards and parameters are not followed.

7. Section 9 of the Seeds Act 1966, gives an option to a person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of any notified kind or variety to have such seed certified by the certification agency. On receipt of such an application, the certifying agency may inter-alia after satisfying itself that the seeds to which the application relates conforms to the prescribed standards, grant the requisite certificate. Since the Act does not mandate a person selling or supplying seeds to obtain the said certification, the standards prescribed by Govt. of India and known as National Certification System for Tissue Culture Raised Plants (NCS-TCP) do not necessarily apply meaning thereby that the Act permits sale of seeds in respect of which the procedure stipulated by the Govt. of India has not been followed.

8. Section 14 of the Act empowers the Seed Inspector to take samples of any seed of any notified kind or variety and send the same for analysis to be carried by the Seed Analyst for the area in which the sample is taken.

9. Section 15 of the Act prescribes procedure to be followed by the Seed Inspector before taking sample in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Section 14 of the Act and this procedure includes service of notice of intention to take samples, to the person from whom the Seed Inspector intends to take the sample. In terms of Section 16 of the Act, the seed analyst is required to analyze the samples at the State Seeds Laboratory and send his report to the Seed Inspector along with a copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken.

10. Rule 24 of the Seeds Rules, 1968 prescribes the manner of taking samples whereas the Rule

25 prescribes the manner of labeling and addressing the containers and parcels. Rule 16 prescribes the manner of packing, fastening and sealing of the samples.

11. Rule 23A of the Seeds Rules 1968 prescribes the action to be taken by a Seed Inspector if a complaint is lodged with him, and reads as under:- Action to be taken by the Seed Inspector if a complaint is lodged with him If farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of the crop is due to the defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety supplied to him, the Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers and a sample of unused seeds to the extent possible from the complaint for establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of his crop by sending samples of the lot to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seed Testing Laboratory. He shall thereupon submit the report of his findings as soon as possible to the competent authority. In case, the Seed Inspector comes to the conclusion that the failure of the crop is due to the quality of seeds supplied to the farmer being less than the minimum standards notified by the Central Government, he shall launch proceedings against the supplier for contravention of the provisions of the Act or these Rules".

12. Rule 13 (3) of the Seeds Rules 1968 requires every person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind or variety to keep over a period of three years, a complete record including sample of each lot of seeds sold. However, the said sample can be discarded after one year of the entire lot represented by such sample being disposed

13. As far as the procedure prescribed in Rule 23-A of the Seed Rules is concerned, it is required to be followed where the complaint lodged by the farmer alleges defect in the seeds in notified kind or variety. The said procedure is not required to be followed in case the seed purchased by the farmer is not of a notified kind or variety. Even the requirement of the retaining the sample for a period of three years is attracted only in respect of the seeds of a notified kind or variety. It is not known whether the seeds purchased by the complainants in these cases were of a notified kind or variety or not. Therefore, we are not in a position to say whether the procedure prescribed in Rule 23 A of the Seeds Act, which inter-alia requires the Seed inspector to take sample of the unused seeds and send the same to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seeds Testing Laboratory was required to be followed. We find that in the reply filed before the District Forum, the petitioner did not claim that the seeds purchased by the complainants were of a notified kind or variety. If that is so, the procedure prescribed in Rule 23 A of the Seeds Act was not required to be followed. We therefore, find no merit in the contention that the report of the Inspection Committee is bad in law, on account of the aforesaid statutory procedure, having not been followed. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 23A mandates seeds inspector to launch proceedings against the supplier of the seeds for contravention of the provisions of the Act / Rules where he concludes that failure of the crop has resulted on account of quality of the seeds supplied to the farmer being less than the minimum standard notified by the Central Government. Therefore, in case, the procedure prescribed in the sub-rule (1) of 23A is not followed, that may adversely affect the proceedings, if any, launched under the provisions of the seeds act in a case where the seeds purchased by the farmer were of a notified kind or variety, but, will have no impact on a complaint filed directly by the farmer against the supplier or manufacturer of the defective seeds, seeking compensation in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, in our opinion, failure of the seeds inspector or for that matter, District Level Enquiry Committee to follow the procedure prescribed in rule 23a of the seeds rules was not fatal to the case of the complainants, if they have otherwise been able to satisfy that the seeds purchased by them were defective or sub-standard.

14. Government of Maharashtra has been issuing administrative circulars from time to time with respect to the procedure to be followed by Panchayat Samiti and Agriculture Development Officer, on receiving complaints from farmers as to the germination capacity or genetical purity of the seeds purchased by the farmers. The circular dated 27.3.1992 requires the Panchayat Samiti to refer the complaints received by it to the Agriculture Development Officer, Zilla Parishad. The complaints have to be entered in a register maintained in the office of the Agriculture Development Officer. The procedure to be adopted, on receiving the complaint reads as under: 4.1 Soon after receiving the complaint, the full time or part time Inspector shall visit the shop of the dealer from whom the agriculturist has purchased the seeds and the information on following counts be obtained.

i. The lot number of seeds ii Release order (Release Certificate) iii Manufacturer of seeds iv The producer of the seeds from whom the dealer has received the seeds v Quantity of the concerned Lot of the Seeds vi From which dealer it is distributed vii To how many agriculturists the concerned dealer has sold the seeds of the concerned lot viii Out of the total agriculturist to whom seeds are sold, complaints of how many agriculturist are received ix Whether the agriculturist had lodged any complaint with the concerned dealer priory and what action the dealer has taken? x Whether the Agri. Development Officer or concerned dealers are informed about receiving of the complaint by Seed Producer / Distributor xi Whether the stocks of the seeds in the Stock Register xii Whether while issuing the bills to the Agriculturist, the name of the crop, lot number, variety etc. are mentioned. xiii On obtaining the above stated information, required records shall be seized. 4.2 .

5. After receiving the information above stated, within one week as from the receipt of the complaint, the farm of the complainant agriculturist be visited. At such visit, it is necessary that all the members of the Committee shall remain present. If any member is unable to remain present, his knowledgeable representative may remain present.

6. About writing the report of the visit When the Committee visits the farm of concerned agriculturist, at that time, the information necessary be obtained from the agriculturist in accordance with the instructions given in the circular issued previously and in accordance with the situation in the farm, the report be worked out. In how much area, the agriculturist had sowed the seeds of concerned variety/ lot. The information along with map be incorporated in the report as about how many plots were selected by the Committee in the concerned land by at random method. What is the percentage of adulteration and what is the number of the adulterated plants with percentage be stated. The distinctive features about the adulterated plants be recorded and the classification based thereon shall be made, if possible. It be stated whether the adulteration is of same crop of other specific variety or unidentifiable other variety is there and the details be stated with statistics thereof f. If the plants are infected, the kind of infection / disease be stated

7. The circular annexed also be obtained and be incorporated in the report.

g) The date of purchase of seeds

h) The date of sowing

i) The method of sowing, as per the recommendation what quantity of seeds per hector ought to have been used and in fact what quantity is used and what is the expected plan population per hector and so also whether the seeds were in validity period or the seeds are used inspite of the expiry of validity period.

j) The reasons be recorded if the germination is less, whether it is caused due to defect in the seeds or due to the sowing method of due to conditions in the land.

k) What was the extent of rains as prior to the sowing with day to day reference? Whether the rains were moderate or so heavy and that the germination is affected thereby

l) If the complaint is about the genetic purity, if the agriculturist has sown the seed of same variety but of other lot or has sown the seed of other variety to fill the gaps and if so, what was the proportion thereof.

m) It be verified as to whether this proportion tallies with the seeds sown and the seeds sown to fill the gaps. So also, the particulars be stated as to when and from which place the seeds are purchased.

n) In addition, the all other necessary information be recorded in details in the report.

9. The procedure to be adopted at the time of visit

r) The statement of agriculturist be recorded in writing at the time of visit as to what is his say in the matter.

s) In the said statement, it be noted as to if the agriculturist has put in fertilizers after purchase of the seeds.

t) Whether the sowing is done by the sowing method or by the labour or with the help of neighbours be stated in the statement.

u) If the agriculturist possesses the empty bags of the seeds, the seed certificate and tag of the certification agency and the labels about truthful seeds and the yellow label about truthful seeds, the bill of purchase shall be seized from the agriculturist and panchanama be conducted in said regard.

v) When the Committee Members visit the farm, other agriculturist remain present and in their presence the panchanama be conducted about the percentage of adulteration in relation to the standing crops. For said panchanama the boundaries, the distance from the village be noted. The full names, addresses and ages of the agriculturist, witnesses and the Committee Members present be noted so that if it becomes necessary that they should attend the Court, it becomes useful.

10. The action to be taken in accordance with findings by the Committee

w) .

x) . aa) In order to know the reality about any complaint in respect of any specific lot of the seeds, for making enquiry in said regards, the fields of minimum one or two farmers who also have purchased the seeds of same lot in the same or the nearby village also be visited and the report be worked out. For verifying the true position, it is more useful to inspect the fields of the agriculturist, who have not lodged any complaint.

11. The action to be taken if the complaints about low germination or genetic purity are more in number cc) If there are many complaints about the same lot, the fields of 2-3 agriculturists who have lodged the complaints and the field of 2-3 agriculturists who have not lodged the complaints be visited and inspected by the Committee Members dd) It is very essential to carry out the inspection of the fields of some agriculturist who have lodged the complaints about the concerned lot. ee) . ff) If it is found that there is substance, the farmer be encouraged for approaching the Consumer Forum.

15. Vide Circular dated 10 October, 1998, Government of Maharashtra reconstituted theth District level Enquiry Committee and directed that the said committee shall work in accordance with the Circular dated 27.03.1992. The said circular also requires the representative of the seed -10- company and the dealer to be informed to remain present at the time of inspection by the committee. The said circular also makes it obligatory for the committee to record the statement of the representative of the seed company.

16. As far as the circulars issued by the Government of Maharashtra are concerned, the said circulars do not indicate as to what was the source of the power in exercise of which the said circulars were issued. The said circulars do not purport to have been issued under a provision of the Seeds Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Even if it is presumed that the aforesaid circulars have been issued under the provisions of the seeds act or the rules framed thereunder, the failure to follow the said procedure cannot be fatal to a complaint, filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the failure of the Seed Inspector or for that matter District Level Enquiry Committee, to follow the said procedure, cannot lead to dismissal of a Consumer Complaint, if the complainant is otherwise able to prove his case. In this regard, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that there is no way a farmer can compel the seed inspector or the committee to follow the procedure prescribed in the Seeds Rules or the rules framed in circulars, if any, issued thereunder. There will be no justification for penalizing the farmer for such a failure on the part of the Seed Inspector or the committee.

17. It was contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the complainants did not request the District Forum to send the samples of the seeds purchased by them to a laboratory, in terms of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, and in the absence of analysis by an appropriate laboratory, as defined in Section 2(1)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum and the State Commission were not justified in holding that the seeds purchased by the complainants were defective. We however, find no merit in the contention. A farmer purchases the seeds for the purpose of using them in his fields and while sowing the seeds, he has no reason to suspect that the seeds purchased by him may turn out to be defective or sub-standard. Therefore, he would have no reason to retain a part of the seeds purchased by him. Consequently, he is not in a position to offer the sample of the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory. The manufacturer / supplier of the seeds on the other hand, may possibly have the samples of such seeds available with him, even at the time notices of a consumer complaint is received by him. Therefore, if he seeks to dispute the allegation of the seeds being defective or sub-standard, he must necessarily offer the sample available with him to the District Forum for sending the same to an appropriate laboratory for carrying out an analysis to determine whether the said seeds suffer from a defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect or not. Admittedly, no such endeavour was made, either by the petitioner or by its dealer, when they appeared before the District Forum.

18. A similar issue arose before this Commission in Revision Petition No. 381 of 2012 Ankur In that case, a complaint alleging poor quality of the seedSeeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Motilal & Anr. was lodged by the farmer with the Senior Agriculture Development Officer and Garden Superintendent of the concerned Block. The fields were then inspected by the Senior Agriculture Development Officer, who reported that the size was irregular and less than the standard claimed by the company. It was also found that the cucumbers were irregular in shape, their colour was not green and there was less grooming of flowers. The District Forum and the State Commission, having ruled in favour of the complainants, the matter was agitated before this Commission by way of a revision petition, which was heard by a Bench of two-Members. Since there was a difference of opinion in the aforesaid Bench, the reference to the Honble President of this Commission was made under Section 20(1A)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act. It was inter-alia contended on behalf of the petitioners that the report of the Senior Agriculture -11- Development Officer could not be relied upon as the fields were inspected without notice to them and the complainants had failed to obtain any reports about the quality of the seeds from a recognized laboratory. Rejecting the contention, the Honble President who along with one of the Honble Members constituted majority in the Bench, inter-alia held as under:

14. In National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. (2012) 2 SCC 506, analysing the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966, particularly with reference to Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, which confers power on Consumer Fora to obtain test report from an appropriate laboratory with a view to finding out whether the goods in question suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint, the Supreme Court observed as follows:

We shall now deal with the question whether the District Forum committed a jurisdictional error by awarding compensation to the respondents without complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c). A reading of the plain language of that section shows that the District Forum can call upon the complainant to provide a sample of goods if it is satisfied that the defect in the goods cannot be determined without proper analysis or test. After the sample is obtained, the same is required to be sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis or test for the purpose of finding out whether the goods suffer from any defect as alleged in the complaint or from any other defect. In some of these cases, the District Forums had appointed agricultural experts as Court Commissioners and directed them to inspect the fields of the respondents and submit report about the status of the crops. In one or two cases the Court appointed the Advocate Commissioner with liberty to him to avail the services of agricultural experts for ascertaining the true status of the crops. The reports of the agricultural experts produced before the District Forum unmistakably revealed that the crops had failed because of defective seeds/foundation seeds. After examining the reports the District Forums felt satisfied that the seeds were defective and this is the reason why the complainants were not called upon to provide samples of the seeds for getting the same analysed/tested in an appropriate laboratory. In our view, the procedure adopted by the District Forum was in no way contrary to Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act and the appellant cannot seek annulment of well-reasoned orders passed by three Consumer Forums on the specious ground that the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act had not been followed. The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. Majority of the farmers in the country remain illiterate throughout their life because they do not have access to the system of education. They have no idea about the Seeds Act and the rules framed thereunder and other legislations, like, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001. They mainly rely on the information supplied by the Agricultural Department and government agencies, like the appellant. Ordinarily, nobody would tell a farmer that after purchasing the seeds for sowing, he should retain a sample thereof so that in the event of loss of crop or less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he may claim compensation from the seller/supplier. In the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that -12- the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective nothing remains with him which could be tested in a laboratory. In some of the cases, the respondents had categorically stated that they had sown the entire quantity of seeds purchased from the appellant. Therefore, it is nave to blame the District Forum for not having called upon the respondents to provide the samples of seeds and send them for analysis or test in the laboratory. It may also be mentioned that there was abject failure on the appellants part to assist the District Forum by providing samples of the varieties of seeds sold to the respondents. Rule 13(3) casts a duty on every person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind or variety to keep over a period of three years a complete record of each lot of seeds sold except that any seed sample may be discarded one year after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed off. The sample of seed kept as part of the complete record has got to be of similar size and if required to be tested, the same shall be tested for determining the purity. The appellant is a large supplier of seeds to the farmers/growers and growers. Therefore, it was expected to keep the samples of the varieties of seeds sold/supplied to the respondents. Such samples could have been easily made available to the District Forums for being sent to an appropriate laboratory for the purpose of analysis or test. Why the appellant did not adopt that course has not been explained.

15. In this behalf, the following observations of the Honble Supreme Court in (1998) 6 SCCMaharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy& Ors.

738 are also apposite:-

..Moreover, if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory. But the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory. Since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstance that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.

16. In the present case, as noted above, noticing that cucumber fruit was deformed and the yield was less than the expected, the Complainant lodged complaint with the Senior Agriculture Development Officer. The said officer found that fruits (cucumber) was irregular in shape; less than the standard claimed by the Company; flowering was less; the fruit was not greener and the agriculturists were getting less yield. In my view, even if the report does not comment on the quality of the seeds, it did raise a strong presumption in favour of the Complainant that defective seeds were the cause for low yield and deformed cucumber crop. As observed by the Supreme Court, it was not expected that the Complainant/farmer should have retained a sample of the seeds, so that in the event of less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he could have got it tested in a laboratory to prove that it was defective or of inferior quality. On the contrary, after the filing of the complaint for compensation, nothing prevented the Petitioners, from tracing out the samples from the batch of the seeds and getting it tested for its quality on their own accord or move an application before the District Forum for sending the sample of the seeds, -13- which ought to have been available with them, for analysis by an appropriate laboratory. Having failed to do so, the Petitioners cannot be heard to say that from the report of the Agriculture Officer no adverse inference regarding quality of the seeds could be drawn on the ground that the Complainant had failed to send the sample of seeds to a laboratory for testing. In my opinion, by placing on record the report of the Agriculture Officer, the Complainant had discharged the initial onus to prove that the seeds in question were sub-standard or defective. In light of the said report, onus shifted on to the Petitioners to prove that the seeds were not defective, as alleged.

19. In view of the above referred decision of this Commission and the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation (supra) and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd.(supra), it cannot be said that the complainants ought to have retained the samples of the seeds purchased by them and offered the same to the District Forum for sending to an appropriate laboratory for carrying out an analysis to determine whether they were sub-standard/defective or not.

20. In these cases inspection was carried out by a committee, consisting of Agriculture Development Officer, Taluka Agriculture Officer, District Seed Certification Officer, District Parishad Member, Operation Member, representative of Mahabeej and representative of the Agricultural University. The aforesaid committee found the seeds sown by the complainants to be defective. No evidence was produced by the petitioners to rebut the aforesaid report of the committee. In the absence of any such rebuttal, the fora below, in our view, were justified in accepting the aforesaid report and concluding that the seeds purchased by the complainants were defective. The learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the report of the committee on the ground that the prior notice of the inspection was not served upon the petitioner, the notice having been sent by ordinary post on 27.05.2008 and since the inspection was carried out on 31.5.2008, the said notice was not even received by the petitioner. The report was also assailed on the ground that it had not been signed by all the members of the committee. As noted earlier, the failure to follow the procedure prescribed under the circulars issued by the Government of Maharashtra will not be fatal to the complainants in a consumer complaint, if he is otherwise able to prove that the seeds purchased by him were defective. Therefore, even the inspection carried out in the absence of the representative of the petitioner committee could be taken into consideration by the fora below though it can hardly be disputed that the inspection report would have been considered to be more authentic, had the representative of the petitioner company been present at the time of inspection. As regards the failure of all the members of the committee to sign the report, that in our opinion, was at best procedural irregularity and would not affect the credibility of the report, which admittedly was duly signed by atleast three public servants, including the Secretary and President of the Enquiry committee. The report of the committee was also assailed on the ground that the committee did not take samples from the fields of those farmers who had purchased the seeds sold by the petitioner company but had not made any complaint with respect to their quality. It was pointed out that the necessity of the inspection of the premises of those farmers who do not make any complaint with -14- respect to the quality of the seeds was recognized in the circulars issued by the Government of Maharashtra. As noted earlier, the failure to adopt the procedure prescribed in the said circulars will not ipso-facto result in rejection of the report of the committee. In any case, the complainants cannot be made to suffer for the failure of the committee to follow the aforesaid procedure.

21. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the Revision Petitions, and the same are accordingly dismissed.

22. However, before parting with these cases, we would like to emphasize that if the farmer alleges any defect in any seed of a notified kind or variety, the seed inspector or for that matter, a committee formed by the Government to investigate into a complaint alleging defect in the seeds of such a kind or variety must necessarily follow the procedure prescribed in rule 23a of the seeds rules. Not only will this enable the seed inspector to launch proceedings against the supplier of the defective goods under the provisions of the Seeds Act / or Rules made thereunder, it will also help the farmer in proving his case before a Consumer Forum in a complaint instituted by him under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Adopting such a procedure will also take away a standard defence which seeds companies normally take in the complaints alleging defect in the seeds purchased by the farmers.

23. As far as the procedure prescribed in the circulars issued by the Government of Maharashtra is concerned, even if the circulars issued by the Government do not have a statutory force, adopting the procedure prescribed in the said circulars in a case where defect in the seeds, whether of a notified kind or variety or of some other kind or variety will not only be beneficial to the farmers in a genuine complaint, it will also ensure a fair treatment to the producer and seller of the seeds, besides curbing false and motivated complaints. This will also enable the Consumer Forum/Court in which proceedings, under the provisions of Seeds Act, may be launched, in coming to a just and fair conclusion. The sample of the seeds can be taken either from the producer or from the dealer, unless the farmer has taken the precaution of preserving the same, in which case the sample will be taken from the farmer. We therefore, direct that one copy of this order be sent to the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmer Welfare, for information and necessary action, including circulation to the Agriculture Departments of all the States and Territories. ......................J

V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER -15-