{ "metadata": { "analysis_of_arguments": "Petitioners claimed that the 2007 Act unconstitutionally transferred judicial powers to a District Level Committee, undermining procedural fairness and excluding seed manufacturers from representation. They also asserted that the scheme imposed unjust burdens on their business operations. The State maintained that the framework was tailored to safeguard farmers through prompt resolution of complaints and compensation for defective seeds, asserting that the Committee\u2019s role did not amount to a formal judicial function but rather a focused administrative mechanism with necessary expertise.", "bench": [ "The Hon\u0027ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe", "The Hon\u0027ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti" ], "case_number": [ "WP No. 34708 of 2012", "WP No. 36673 of 2012", "WP No. 39793 of 2012", "WP No. 5397 of 2016" ], "cases_referred": [ "Pareena Swarup vs. Union of India [(2008) 14 SCC 107]", "Union of India vs. Madras Bar Association [(2010) 11 SCC 1]", "A.K.Behera vs. Union of India [(2010) 11 SCC 322]", "State of Gujarat vs. Utility Users\u2019 Welfare Association [(2018) 6 SCC 21]", "Directorate of Enforcement, rep. by its Assistant Director vs. Karvy India Realty Limited [(2024 SCC OnLine TS 18)]", "Associated Cement Companies Limited vs P.N.Sharma [1964 SCC OnLine SC 62 : AIR 1965 SC 1595]", "Durga Shankar Mehta vs Thakur Raghuraj Singh [(1955) 1 SCR 267]", "Attorney-General for Australia vs Queen and the Boilermakers\u0027 Society of Australia [1957 AC 288]", "Waterside Workers\u0027 Federation of Australia vs Alexander (J.W.) Ltd. [(1918) 25 CLR 434]" ], "chunkwise_data": { "chunk_1": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The petitioners contend that the impugned measures impose unjust constraints on their business operations. The State defends these regulations as necessary to protect farmers from unfair practices and ensure equitable pricing of seeds.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": "27.03.2024", "facts": "The petitioners are seed companies engaged in research, development, and sale of seeds. They have challenged the validity of certain state laws that fix seed sale prices, arguing that these provisions adversely affect their business. The petitioners also contest an official order granting compensation to farmers, alleging it is based on questionable grounds. Before approaching this Court, the matter was heard by a District Level Committee, which directed payment of compensation. The petitioners now seek relief from this Court to overturn the findings and to safeguard their commercial interests.", "final_status": "No final status is provided in this section.", "formatted_summary": "This portion of the document outlines the petitioners\u2019 challenge to statutory provisions regulating the supply and pricing of cotton seeds, as well as an administrative order awarding compensation to farmers. The petitioners, who are seed companies, argue that these measures adversely impact their business and are unconstitutional. The text sketches the background surrounding seed legislation, mentions the role of the Essential Commodities Act, and describes the State\u2019s reasons for introducing the impugned provisions. No final decision or holding is detailed in this excerpt.", "held": "No decision or holding is provided in the available text.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the state legislature can regulate and fix cotton seed sale prices, and whether the administrative order granting compensation to farmers is valid.", "prayer": "The petitioners in these writ petitions have assailed the validity of Section 5(1)(b) and Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 as well as the Rules 27, 28 and 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2007 on the ground that the same are unconstitutional. The petitioners, in addition, have assailed the validity of the Order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the Chairman, District Level Committee granting compensation in favour of the farmers.", "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007": "4. The State Legislature also noticed Article 39 (b) of the Constitution of India which requires the State to make statutory prescription so as to make available the commodities essential at the fair price. Therefore, in the interest of farming fraternity and in order to ensure free flow of supply, equal distribution and price of all cotton seeds including transgenic cotton seeds and to protect farmer economy, and to ensure that Cotton Seed Regulation law is in consonance with National Seed Policy, 2002, the State Legislature enacted the Act, namely Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the 2007 Act\u2019).", "Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2007": "COMMON ORDER : (Per the Hon\u2019ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)\n\nThe petitioners are the companies incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and are inter alia engaged in the business of research , development, production, marketing and sale of seeds. The petitioners in these writ petitions have assailed the validity of Section 5(1)(b) and Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 as well as the Rules 27, 28 and 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2007 on the ground that the same are unconstitutional. The petitioners, in addition, have assailed the validity of the Order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the Chairman, District Level Committee granting compensation in favour of the farmers. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra.", "Companies Act, 1956": "COMMON ORDER : (Per the Hon\u2019ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)\n\nThe petitioners are the companies incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and are inter alia engaged in the business of research , development, production, marketing and sale of seeds. The petitioners in these writ petitions have assailed the validity of Section 5(1)(b) and Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 as well as the Rules 27, 28 and 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2007 on the ground that the same are unconstitutional. The petitioners, in addition, have assailed the validity of the Order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the Chairman, District Level Committee granting compensation in favour of the farmers. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra.", "Constitution of India": "4. The State Legislature also noticed Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India which requires the State to make statutory prescription so as to make available the commodities essential at the fair price. Therefore, in the interest of farming fraternity and in order to ensure free flow of supply, equal distribution and price of all cotton seeds including transgenic cotton seeds and to protect farmer economy, and to ensure that Cotton Seed Regulation law is in consonance with National Seed Policy, 2002, the State Legislature enacted the Act, namely Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the 2007 Act\u2019).", "Environment Protection Act, 1986": "3. The expression \u201ccotton seed\u201d was deleted by way of amendment w.e.f. 24.12.2006 from the Schedule of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Rules made thereunder and the Rules for Manufacture, Use/Import/ Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms / Genetically Engineered Organism or Cells, 1989 deal with only biosafety aspects of transgenic cotton seed. The State Legislature noticed that traders who were dealing in cotton seed including transgenic cotton seeds have been resorting to dubious methods and exploitation of poor farmers, particularly in respect of scarce type of cotton seed. The said methods and exploitation of farmers led them into debt trap and sometimes suicides as well. It was further noticed by the State Legislature that multinational companies were taking undue advantage of their monopoly in respect of scarce type of cotton seed.", "Essential Commodities Act, 1955": "3. The expression \u201ccotton seed\u201d was deleted by way of amendment w.e.f. 24.12.2006 from the Schedule of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Rules made thereunder and the Rules for Manufacture, Use/Import/ Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms / Genetically Engineered Organism or Cells, 1989 deal with only biosafety aspects of transgenic cotton seed. The State Legislature noticed that traders who were dealing in cotton seed including transgenic cotton seeds have been resorting to dubious methods and exploitation of poor farmers, particularly in respect of scarce type of cotton seed. The said methods and exploitation of farmers led them into debt trap and sometimes suicides as well. It was further noticed by the State Legislature that multinational companies were taking undue advantage of their monopoly in respect of scarce type of cotton seed.", "Seeds (Control) Order, 1983": "2. In the year 1955, the Parliament enacted Essential Commodities Act. The law relating to seeds is governed by the Seeds Act, 1966. The provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966 regulate the quality of seed in respect of notified varieties. Over the period of time, there has been a substantial change of pattern of agriculture particularly in usage of seed. Therefore, the provisions of the Act have been found to be inadequate for enforcement in respect of quality of cotton seed and regulation of trade of non-notified cotton varieties, research hybrid varieties etc., as a result the entire economy of farmers is affected. Seed was initially declared to be an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Government of India in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has issued Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.", "Seeds Act, 1966": "2. In the year 1955, the Parliament enacted Essential Commodities Act. The law relating to seeds is governed by the Seeds Act, 1966. The provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966 regulate the quality of seed in respect of notified varieties. Over the period of time, there has been a substantial change of pattern of agriculture particularly in usage of seed. Therefore, the provisions of the Act have been found to be inadequate for enforcement in respect of quality of cotton seed and regulation of trade of non-notified cotton varieties, research hybrid varieties etc., as a result the entire economy of farmers is affected. Seed was initially declared to be an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Government of India in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has issued Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.", "the Rules for Manufacture, Use/Import/Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms / Genetically Engineered Organism or Cells, 1989": "3. The expression \u201ccotton seed\u201d was deleted by way of amendment w.e.f. 24.12.2006 from the Schedule of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Rules made thereunder and the Rules for Manufacture, Use/Import/ Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms / Genetically Engineered Organism or Cells, 1989 deal with only biosafety aspects of transgenic cotton seed. The State Legislature noticed that traders who were dealing in cotton seed including transgenic cotton seeds have been resorting to dubious methods and exploitation of poor farmers, particularly in respect of scarce type of cotton seed. The said methods and exploitation of farmers led them into debt trap and sometimes suicides as well. It was further noticed by the State Legislature that multinational companies were taking undue advantage of their monopoly in respect of scarce type of cotton seed." } }, "chunk_2": { "analysis_of_arguments": "There are no arguments presented from any parties in this excerpt.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "The text describes the legislative background for the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 to ensure fair distribution and pricing of cotton seeds, including transgenic varieties. It highlights the need to protect farmers\u2019 interests, prevent the supply of inferior seeds, and establish a compensation mechanism. The rules were framed under the Act to regulate seed distribution, fix sale prices, and provide a procedure to address grievances. No specific dispute or procedural history is mentioned in the excerpt.", "final_status": "No final status is indicated in this excerpt.", "formatted_summary": "The excerpt outlines the legislative measures taken by the Andhra Pradesh government to regulate cotton seed supply, distribution, and pricing, especially concerning transgenic varieties. It describes the mechanism for compensation to farmers in case of inferior seeds and the procedures laid down in the 2007 Rules. No reference to a specific legal dispute or court prayer is made.", "held": "No decision or holding is provided in this excerpt.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "No direct legal issues are identified in this excerpt.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007": "commodities essential at the fair price. Therefore, in the interest of farming fraternity and in order to ensure free flow of supply, equal distribution and price of all cotton seeds including transgenic cotton seeds and to protect farmer economy, and to ensure that Cotton Seed Regulation law is in consonance with National Seed Policy, 2002, the State Legislature enacted the Act, namely Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as \u0027the 2007 Act\u0027).\n\n5. The salient features of the Act are to constitute and appoint a Controller at the State level, to notify the Seed Testing Laboratories and to curtail the supply of spurious or inferior quality of seed. The Act also provides for evolving an efficient regulatory system which enables effective quality assurance, supply, distribution at fair price as well as punishment for violation of provisions of the Act. The Act contains a mechanism for providing adequate compensation to the farmers in the event of supply of inferior quality of cotton seed. The Act incorporates a regulatory mechanism for regulation of trade of transgenic and genetically modified varieties by way of compulsory DNA finger printing tests or genetic purity test, mandatory registration of all types of cotton seed produced in the State or imported to the State.\n\n6. Section 2 of the 2007 Act defines the expression \u0027Controller\u0027 to mean the Cotton Seed Controller appointed by the Government under Section 3 of the Act. Section 5(1)(b) of the Act empowers the Controller to grant compensation to the farmers. Section 7 of the Act deals with compensation to farmers\u2026", "Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2007": "7. Under Section 20 of the aforesaid Act, the Rules, namely the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as \u0027the 2007 Rules\u0027) have been framed. Part VI of the aforesaid Rules deals with compensation to farmers. Rule 27 prescribes the action to be taken by the Seed Inspector if a complaint is lodged with him, whereas Rule 28 prescribes the procedure for handling field complaints lodged by the farmers. Rule 29 prescribes for an Appeal to the Appellate Authority. Rules 27, 28 and 29 of the 2007 Rules read as under:\n\n\u002727. Action to be taken by the seed inspector if a complaint is lodged with him. - (1) If farmer has lodged a complaint in writing in Form \u2018V\u2019 about the failure of cotton crop due to inferior quality of cotton seeds supplied to him, the Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers, the cash bill and a sample of cotton seeds to the extent possible from the complainant for establishing source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the cause of failure of crop\u2026\u0027" } }, "chunk_3": { "analysis_of_arguments": "Petitioners argue that entrusting the determination of compensation and liability to an executive committee undermines fundamental procedural fairness and infringes the separation of powers. They contend that the rules favor farmers without affording seed manufacturers representation, thus being discriminatory and violative of equal protection guarantees.", "cases_referred": [ "Pareena Swarup vs. Union of India [(2008) 14 SCC 107]" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "By an order dated 01.10.2011, the State Government constituted District Level Committees to address farmers\u2019 complaints regarding defective seeds. The District Collector heads the committee, which includes representatives from the Agriculture and Horticulture Departments, a crop scientist, and farmer and seed grower representatives. Acting on complaints, the committee granted compensation to farmers. In response, the petitioners challenge the constitutionality of the 2007 Act and the committee\u2019s orders granting compensation under the same.", "final_status": "Not mentioned in this text", "formatted_summary": "This portion of the document sets out the framework for District Level Committees to address farmers\u2019 complaints about defective seeds, the procedure for granting compensation, and the petitioners\u2019 challenge to the 2007 Act. The petitioners contend that delegating adjudicatory power to an executive committee violates separation of powers and lacks fairness. They also allege discrimination because the rules allow for farmers\u2019 representation without seed manufacturers\u2019 representation, raising concerns under Article 14.", "held": "Not mentioned in this text", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether conferring adjudicatory power to an executive committee violates separation of powers and due process; whether the 2007 Act and its rules are arbitrary or discriminatory, especially as they allegedly exclude a representative of seed manufacturers; and whether such provisions infringe Article 14.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Article 14": "It is further submitted that the impugned provisions are violative of rule of law as well as Article 14, as payment of compensation is an adjudicatory function, which has been left to the executive body, thereby allegedly denying an impartial judicial process.", "the 2007 Act": "9. On the basis of the complaints made by the farmers, the District Level Committee passed orders granting compensation to the farmers. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the 2007 Act as well as the orders passed by the District Level Committee under the 2007 Act, granting compensation.", "the 2007 Rules": "Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned provisions purport to breach the principles of separation of powers and give judicial powers of adjudication and assessment of compensation with regard to the determination of loss and payment of compensation to the executive body, which is a committee. It is further submitted that Rule 28 of the 2007 Rules is arbitrary and discriminatory, inasmuch as, despite the fact that every dispute will have two parties to it, the impugned Rule purports to include the representative of the farmers only, without including any corresponding representative of seed manufacturer industry. It is further submitted that the impugned provisions are violative of rule of law as well as Article 14." } }, "chunk_4": { "analysis_of_arguments": "Petitioners argue that assigning adjudicatory powers to an administrative body is unconstitutional and discriminatory, as it fails to include representation for seed manufacturers in compensation proceedings. The State responds that the structure is necessary to swiftly protect farmers, emphasizing timelines and the administrative expertise required for crop-related disputes, and pointing out non-joinder of farmer representatives.", "cases_referred": [ "Pareena Swarup vs. Union of India [(2008) 14 SCC 107]", "Union of India vs. Madras Bar Association [(2010) 11 SCC 1]", "A.K.Behera vs. Union of India [(2010) 11 SCC 322]", "State of Gujarat vs. Utility Users\u2019 Welfare Association [(2018) 6 SCC 21]", "Directorate of Enforcement, rep. by its Assistant Director vs. Karvy India Realty Limited [(2024 SCC OnLine TS 18)]" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "These writ petitions arise from a challenge to certain provisions of the 2007 Act and the 2007 Rules, which empower a District Level Committee to assess and grant compensation to farmers for losses arising from allegedly substandard cotton seeds. Seed manufacturers contest this mechanism on grounds of separation of powers and alleged discrimination, whereas the State contends that the legislative scheme is meant to secure timely relief for farmers with inferior seed quality. The matter has proceeded on submissions and rejoinders concerning the validity of the challenged provisions, but no final determination appears in this excerpt.", "final_status": "No final status is provided in the excerpt.", "formatted_summary": "In these proceedings, seed manufacturers question the validity of the 2007 Act and Rules, contending that empowering a District Level Committee to determine compensation to farmers for alleged defective seed quality infringes separation of powers and discriminates by omitting manufacturer representation. The State asserts that prompt resolution of farmers\u2019 compensation claims is crucial due to the brief duration of cotton crops. Various judicial precedents are cited. The court\u2019s final determination is not provided in this excerpt.", "held": "No conclusive holding is set out in the provided text.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether entrusting the assessment of compensation to an executive committee violates the principle of separation of powers, and whether excluding seed manufacturers\u2019 representatives but including only farmers in the committee is discriminatory and infringes Article 14 of the Constitution.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Constitution of India (Article 14)": "10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned provisions purport to breach the principles of separation of powers and give judicial powers of adjudication and assessment of compensation with regard to the determination of loss and payment of compensation to the executive body, which is a committee. It is further submitted that Rule 28 of the 2007 Rules is arbitrary and discriminatory, inasmuch as, despite the fact that every dispute will have two parties to it, the impugned Rule purports to include the representative of the farmers only, without including any corresponding representative of seed manufacturer industry. It is further submitted that the impugned provisions are violative of rule of law as well as Article 14, as payment of compensation is adjudicatory function, which has been left to the executive body. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pareena Swarup vs. Union of India1, Union of India vs. Madras Bar Association2, A.K.Behera vs. Union of India3 and State of Gujarat vs. Utility Users\u2019 Welfare Association4.", "Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938": "15. It is noteworthy that function of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to the administrative or executive bodies under several enactments. We may refer to few such statutory provisions. However, reference to such provisions is only illustrative, and not exhaustive. For instance, under Section 9 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, the Collector is empowered to deal with claim for compensation in respect of land affected by a declaration, which may be issued under Section 3 of the Act. Under Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938, the Collector is empowered to assess compensation in respect of any damage to person or property or interference of rights or privileges arising from military manoeuvres. Another Act, namely, the Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949, provides that compensation shall be payable for any damage to person or property or interference with the rights, privileges or interests arising from artillery practice. The reference to these laws is only to illustrate that administrative or executive bodies are often tasked with such functions.", "Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949": "15. It is noteworthy that function of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to the administrative or executive bodies under several enactments. We may refer to few such statutory provisions. However, reference to such provisions is only illustrative, and not exhaustive. For instance, under Section 9 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, the Collector is empowered to deal with claim for compensation in respect of land affected by a declaration, which may be issued under Section 3 of the Act. Under Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938, the Collector is empowered to assess compensation in respect of any damage to person or property or interference of rights or privileges arising from military manoeuvres. Another Act, namely, the Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949, provides that compensation shall be payable for any damage to person or property or interference with the rights, privileges or interests arising from artillery practice. The reference to these laws is only to illustrate that administrative or executive bodies are often tasked with such functions.", "Works of Defence Act, 1903": "15. It is noteworthy that function of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to the administrative or executive bodies under several enactments. We may refer to few such statutory provisions. However, reference to such provisions is only illustrative, and not exhaustive. For instance, under Section 9 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, the Collector is empowered to deal with claim for compensation in respect of land affected by a declaration, which may be issued under Section 3 of the Act. Under Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938, the Collector is empowered to assess compensation in respect of any damage to person or property or interference of rights or privileges arising from military manoeuvres. Another Act, namely, the Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949, provides that compensation shall be payable for any damage to person or property or interference with the rights, privileges or interests arising from artillery practice. The reference to these laws is only to illustrate that administrative or executive bodies are often tasked with such functions.", "the 2007 Act": "11. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents has submitted that the main object of the 2007 Act and the 2007 Rules is to protect the farmers against the failure of cotton crop due to inferior quality of cotton seeds. It is further submitted that the District Level Committee is constituted for assessment and evaluation of crop losses sustained by the farmers due to poor germination or susceptibility to the pests and diseases or genetic impurity. It is submitted that the representative of the seed manufacturer and the complainant farmer are to be invited at the time of field inspection and also at the time of hearing of the Committee. It is contended that under the 2007 Act, timelines are fixed for lodging the complaint and for disposal of the complaint. It is further contended that cotton is 120 day crop and therefore, the farmer is entitled to get his complaint adjudicated within the time limit. It is also contended that the 2007 Rules apply only to cotton crop and not for any other crops as cotton is only rainfed commercial crop, which is cultivated by the small and marginal farmers, who constitute 80% of the total farmers. It is pointed out that the writ petitions suffer from non-joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as the farmers have not been impleaded in these writ petitions. Therefore, the issue of validity of the orders granting compensation in favour of the farmers cannot be examined in these writ petitions. In support of his submissions, learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Directorate of Enforcement, rep. by its Assistant Director vs. Karvy India Realty Limited5.", "the 2007 Rules": "10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned provisions purport to breach the principles of separation of powers and give judicial powers of adjudication and assessment of compensation with regard to the determination of loss and payment of compensation to the executive body, which is a committee. It is further submitted that Rule 28 of the 2007 Rules is arbitrary and discriminatory, inasmuch as, despite the fact that every dispute will have two parties to it, the impugned Rule purports to include the representative of the farmers only, without including any corresponding representative of seed manufacturer industry. It is further submitted that the impugned provisions are violative of rule of law as well as Article 14, as payment of compensation is adjudicatory function, which has been left to the executive body. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pareena Swarup vs. Union of India1, Union of India vs. Madras Bar Association2, A.K.Behera vs. Union of India3 and State of Gujarat vs. Utility Users\u2019 Welfare Association4." } }, "chunk_5": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The discussion highlights that executive bodies often gain expertise through repeated involvement in compensation matters and therefore may be empowered to adjudicate. It also references the argument that judicial powers are traditionally reserved for courts, relying on Supreme Court authority studying the constitutional principle of separation of powers.", "cases_referred": [ "Associated Cement Companies Limited vs P.N.Sharma [1964 SCC OnLine SC 62 : AIR 1965 SC 1595]", "Durga Shankar Mehta vs Thakur Raghuraj Singh [(1955) 1 SCR 267]", "Attorney-General for Australia vs Queen and the Boilermakers\u0027 Society of Australia [1957 AC 288]", "Waterside Workers\u0027 Federation of Australia vs Alexander (J.W.) Ltd. [(1918) 25 CLR 434]" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "This excerpt describes how certain statutes entrust administrative or executive bodies with the assessment of compensation. It references no specific factual background or procedural history of a particular dispute but instead provides an overview of how collectors and similar officers may determine damages. There is no mention of any lower court decisions or direct factual controversies within this segment of text.", "final_status": "No final status is described in this excerpt.", "formatted_summary": "This excerpt focuses on how executive authorities can be entrusted with quasi-judicial tasks of assessing compensation under various statutes. It cites instances where Collectors are empowered to determine damages and references a landmark decision discussing whether judicial power can be conferred on bodies other than courts. The text underscores the constitutional framework on separation of powers, explaining that certain specialized functions, like compensation assessment, may be validly delegated to executive agencies, so long as constitutional guidelines are observed.", "held": "The passage does not provide a concluding decision on the specific dispute. Instead, it illustrates the court\u2019s view that executive authorities may lawfully exercise certain adjudicatory functions under statutes, provided constitutional requirements are met.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether judicial power can be vested in bodies other than courts, particularly in the context of assessing compensation, and the constitutional implications of granting such quasi-judicial authority to executive agencies.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938": "15. It is noteworthy that function of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to the administrative or executive bodies under several enactments. We may refer to few such statutory provisions. However, reference to such provisions is only illustrative, and not exhaustive. For instance, under Section 9 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, the Collector is empowered to deal with claim for compensation in respect of land affected by a declaration, which may be issued under Section 3 of the Act. Under Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938, the Collector is empowered to assess compensation in respect of any damage to person or property or interference of rights or privileges arising from military manoeuvres. Another Act, namely, the Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949, provides that compensation shall be payable for any damage to person or property or interference with the rights or privileges arising from Seaward Artillery practice. Section 6 of the aforesaid Act deals with the method of compensation. Section 6 empowers the Collector to depute revenue officers for assessment of compensation. Similarly, Section 27 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, empowers Collector to assess total compensation to be paid in respect of the land which is sought to be acquired under the Act. Thus, under several statutory provisions, the work of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to executive.", "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013": "15. It is noteworthy that function of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to the administrative or executive bodies under several enactments. We may refer to few such statutory provisions. However, reference to such provisions is only illustrative, and not exhaustive. For instance, under Section 9 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, the Collector is empowered to deal with claim for compensation in respect of land affected by a declaration, which may be issued under Section 3 of the Act. Under Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938, the Collector is empowered to assess compensation in respect of any damage to person or property or interference of rights or privileges arising from military manoeuvres. Another Act, namely, the Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949, provides that compensation shall be payable for any damage to person or property or interference with the rights or privileges arising from Seaward Artillery practice. Section 6 of the aforesaid Act deals with the method of compensation. Section 6 empowers the Collector to depute revenue officers for assessment of compensation. Similarly, Section 27 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, empowers Collector to assess total compensation to be paid in respect of the land which is sought to be acquired under the Act. Thus, under several statutory provisions, the work of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to executive.", "Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949": "15. It is noteworthy that function of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to the administrative or executive bodies under several enactments. We may refer to few such statutory provisions. However, reference to such provisions is only illustrative, and not exhaustive. For instance, under Section 9 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, the Collector is empowered to deal with claim for compensation in respect of land affected by a declaration, which may be issued under Section 3 of the Act. Under Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938, the Collector is empowered to assess compensation in respect of any damage to person or property or interference of rights or privileges arising from military manoeuvres. Another Act, namely, the Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949, provides that compensation shall be payable for any damage to person or property or interference with the rights or privileges arising from Seaward Artillery practice. Section 6 of the aforesaid Act deals with the method of compensation. Section 6 empowers the Collector to depute revenue officers for assessment of compensation. Similarly, Section 27 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, empowers Collector to assess total compensation to be paid in respect of the land which is sought to be acquired under the Act. Thus, under several statutory provisions, the work of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to executive.", "The Constitution of India": "16. The issue whether the judicial power can be vested in any authority other than a Court has been examined by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies Limited vs. P.N.Sharma6. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision dealt with the issue whether the State of Punjab, exercising the appellate jurisdiction under Rule 6(6) of Punjab Welfare Officers Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1952 is a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 136(1) of the Constitution of India and in paragraphs 9, 29, 30 and 44, held as under:", "Works of Defence Act, 1903": "15. It is noteworthy that function of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to the administrative or executive bodies under several enactments. We may refer to few such statutory provisions. However, reference to such provisions is only illustrative, and not exhaustive. For instance, under Section 9 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, the Collector is empowered to deal with claim for compensation in respect of land affected by a declaration, which may be issued under Section 3 of the Act. Under Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938, the Collector is empowered to assess compensation in respect of any damage to person or property or interference of rights or privileges arising from military manoeuvres. Another Act, namely, the Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949, provides that compensation shall be payable for any damage to person or property or interference with the rights or privileges arising from Seaward Artillery practice. Section 6 of the aforesaid Act deals with the method of compensation. Section 6 empowers the Collector to depute revenue officers for assessment of compensation. Similarly, Section 27 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, empowers Collector to assess total compensation to be paid in respect of the land which is sought to be acquired under the Act. Thus, under several statutory provisions, the work of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to executive." } }, "chunk_6": { "analysis_of_arguments": "One position emphasizes that certain authorities can exercise judicial functions even if they are not traditional courts, while the other side questions whether these bodies merely hold quasi-judicial powers. The discussion references the broader constitutional framework, contrasting strict separation of powers under the Australian Constitution with the more flexible approach under the Indian Constitution.", "cases_referred": [ "Waterside Workers\u0027 Federation of Australia vs Alexander (J.W.) Ltd. [(1918) 25 CLR 434, 442]" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "The excerpt describes a scenario involving cotton, a 120-day crop cultivated mostly by small and marginal farmers who may face issues such as poor germination or susceptibility to pests. Farmers can lodge complaints and request on-site inspections, with specific timelines set for filing and resolving these complaints. The text notes that compensation is decided after examination by a designated committee. The dispute appears to concern whether the body adjudicating these matters performs a judicial role akin to a court or tribunal. No detailed procedural history or previously issued orders is provided, only the context of how and when farmers may seek relief.", "final_status": "Not provided in the excerpt", "formatted_summary": "This passage discusses the concept of vesting judicial power in bodies other than traditional courts, noting that a strict separation of powers, as found in the Australian Constitution, does not apply under the Indian Constitution. It references a Constitution Bench decision explaining how certain authorities or tribunals may be entrusted with judicial functions. The text then turns briefly to the factual backdrop of cotton farmers facing germination or pest issues, outlining timelines for lodging complaints and receiving compensation. The question revolves around whether the adjudicatory body qualifies as a tribunal under constitutional provisions.", "held": "No definitive outcome is stated in the provided text", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether a body entrusted with determining disputes between parties, specifically in the context of cotton crop complaints and compensation, qualifies as a tribunal under constitutional provisions and if such vesting of judicial powers is permissible under the Indian Constitution.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Arbitration Act, 1940": "\u201cAn authority or body deriving its power of adjudication from an agreement of the parties, such as a private arbitrator or a tribunal acting under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not satisfy the test of a tribunal within Article 136. It matters little that such a body or authority is vested with the trappings of a court. The Arbitration Act, 1940 vests an arbitrator with some of the trappings of a court, so also the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vests an authority acting under Section 10-A of the Act with many of such trappings, and yet, such bodies and authorities are not tribunals.\u201d", "Article 136(1) of the Constitution of India": "\u201c30. We have referred to these two decisions only for the purpose of emphasising the fact that the technical considerations which flow from the strict and rigid separation of powers, would not be applicable in dealing with the question about the status of Respondent 2 by reference to Article 136(1) of our Constitution. The use of the expression \u201cjudicial power\u201d in the context, cannot be characterised as constitutionally impermissible or inappropriate, because our Constitution does not provide, as does Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, that judicial power can be conferred only on courts properly so-called. If such a consideration was relevant and material, then it would no doubt, be inappropriate to say that certain authorities or bodies which are given the power to deal with disputes between parties and finally determine them, are tribunals because the judicial power of the State has been statutorily transferred to them.\u201d", "Industrial Disputes Act, 1947": "\u201cAn authority or body deriving its power of adjudication from an agreement of the parties, such as a private arbitrator or a tribunal acting under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not satisfy the test of a tribunal within Article 136. It matters little that such a body or authority is vested with the trappings of a court. The Arbitration Act, 1940 vests an arbitrator with some of the trappings of a court, so also the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vests an authority acting under Section 10-A of the Act with many of such trappings, and yet, such bodies and authorities are not tribunals.\u201d" } }, "chunk_7": { "analysis_of_arguments": "Petitioners contend that the District Level Committee exercises adjudicatory power that should remain with courts, infringing on constitutional principles. Respondents maintain that the Committee\u2019s role is limited and does not involve the transfer of any core judicial function.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": "27.03.2024", "facts": "The dispute involves alleged supply of inferior or unsuitable cotton seeds to small and marginal farmers, prompting the State Legislature to enact regulatory measures in 2007. Farmers can lodge complaints with the District Level Committee if problems such as poor germination or pest susceptibility arise, and compensation is assessed within prescribed timelines. The petitioners approached the court challenging provisions of this regulatory framework.", "final_status": "dismissed", "formatted_summary": "The court addressed challenges to legislation designed to regulate cotton seed quality, compensation mechanisms, and complaints processes. Farmers alleging insufficient germination or pest susceptibility could seek redress through a District Level Committee. Petitioners argued these provisions transferred judicial powers to an executive body, violating constitutional principles. The court rejected these arguments, holding that the Committee\u2019s role did not constitute a usurpation of judicial authority. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.", "held": "The court dismissed the petitions, concluding that the provisions do not breach separation of powers and lawfully empower the District Level Committee to assess compensation without exercising purely judicial functions.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the impugned legislation and rules improperly allocate judicial functions to an administrative committee and contravene the separation of powers.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "2007 Act": "19. The expression \u2018cotton seed\u2019 was deleted from the Schedule of Essential Commodities Act by way of Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2006, which came into force on 24.12.2006. The State Legislature therefore enacted the 2007 Act in the interest of the farming fraternity and in order to ensure free flow of supply, equal distribution and fair price of all cotton seeds. The Act provides for evolving an efficient regulatory system. The Act contains a mechanism for providing adequate compensation to the farmers in the event of supply of inferior quality seed and also provides for regulatory mechanism for regulation of trade of transgenic and genetically modified varieties by way of compulsory DNA finger printing test or genetic purity test and mandatory registration of all types of cotton seeds produced in the State or imported to the State. 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.", "2007 Rules": "20. 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. The Rule 28 of the 2007 Rules requires that the representative of the seed producer and the complainant farmer are to be invited at the time of field inspection and also for hearing of the Committee. Therefore, the contention that the Committee comprises of representative of the farmer only is misconceived.", "Electricity Act, 2003": "21. Insofar as reliance placed on behalf of the petitioners to the decisions of Pareena Swarup (supra) and Madras Bar Association (supra) is concerned, the ratio in the aforesaid decisions is that whenever traditional Court is divested of its jurisdiction and the same is transferred to any other analogous court/tribunal, the qualification and acumen of such a member in the tribunal must be commensurate with that of the court, from which such adjudicatory function is transferred. In the instant case, none of the adjudicatory functions of the Court have been transferred to the District Level Committee. Therefore, the aforesaid decisions are of no assistance to the petitioners in the facts of the case. Similarly, in Utility Users\u2019 Welfare Association (supra), the Supreme Court dealt with the scope and ambit of Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and held that the Commission has the option of either adjudicating the dispute between the licensees and generating company or refer the same to the arbitration. In the aforesaid context, the Supreme Court examined the issue that the State Regulatory Commission constituted under the Electricity Act is required to have one judicial member. The aforesaid decision in the facts of the case is of no assistance to the petitioners.", "Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2006": "19. The expression \u2018cotton seed\u2019 was deleted from the Schedule of Essential Commodities Act by way of Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2006, which came into force on 24.12.2006. The State Legislature therefore enacted the 2007 Act in the interest of the farming fraternity and in order to ensure free flow of supply, equal distribution and fair price of all cotton seeds. The Act provides for evolving an efficient regulatory system. The Act contains a mechanism for providing adequate compensation to the farmers in the event of supply of inferior quality seed and also provides for regulatory mechanism for regulation of trade of transgenic and genetically modified varieties by way of compulsory DNA finger printing test or genetic purity test and mandatory registration of all types of cotton seeds produced in the State or imported to the State. 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.", "Essential Commodities Act": "19. The expression \u2018cotton seed\u2019 was deleted from the Schedule of Essential Commodities Act by way of Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2006, which came into force on 24.12.2006. The State Legislature therefore enacted the 2007 Act in the interest of the farming fraternity and in order to ensure free flow of supply, equal distribution and fair price of all cotton seeds. The Act provides for evolving an efficient regulatory system. The Act contains a mechanism for providing adequate compensation to the farmers in the event of supply of inferior quality seed and also provides for regulatory mechanism for regulation of trade of transgenic and genetically modified varieties by way of compulsory DNA finger printing test or genetic purity test and mandatory registration of all types of cotton seeds produced in the State or imported to the State. 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." } }, "chunk_8": { "analysis_of_arguments": "There is no substantive discussion of arguments presented by either side in the excerpt.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": "27.03.2024", "facts": "No factual background or procedural history is provided in this excerpt beyond the final disposition of the writ petitions. The text merely indicates that the petitions were considered and ultimately dismissed, with no order as to costs.", "final_status": "dismissed", "formatted_summary": "The court found no merit in the writ petitions, dismissed them without costs, and closed any pending miscellaneous applications.", "held": "The writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of lacking merit and without any order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "No specific legal issues are identified in the provided text.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": {} } }, "counsels": [ "Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy (for Petitioners)", "Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan (for respondents)" ], "delivered_date": "27.03.2024", "facts": "The petitioners, seed companies engaged in research, development, and sale of seeds, challenged provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 and the associated Rules. They argued that the Act\u2019s price-fixing measures and the District Level Committee\u2019s authority to grant compensation for alleged seed defects affected their business interests and potentially violated constitutional principles. The District Level Committees, established by the State Government and led by the District Collector, investigated farmers\u2019 complaints about poor germination, pest susceptibility, or genetic impurity and awarded compensation. The petitioners sought relief from this Court to overturn the compensatory orders and questioned whether such an executive mechanism lawfully exercised adjudicatory powers. The State defended its legislation and emphasized protecting farmers, ensuring equitable seed pricing, and preventing inferior seed supply.", "final_status": "dismissed", "first_party": [ "1. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited and others, rep. by its Consultant Mr. S. Sartaj Mohammed Khan" ], "grouped_statutes": { "Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007": [ "4. The State Legislature also noticed Article 39 (b) of the Constitution of India which requires the State to make statutory prescription so as to make available the commodities essential at the fair price. Therefore, in the interest of farming fraternity and in order to ensure free flow of supply, equal distribution and price of all cotton seeds including transgenic cotton seeds and to protect farmer economy, and to ensure that Cotton Seed Regulation law is in consonance with National Seed Policy, 2002, the State Legislature enacted the Act, namely Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the 2007 Act\u2019).", "commodities essential at the fair price. Therefore, in the interest of farming fraternity and in order to ensure free flow of supply, equal distribution and price of all cotton seeds including transgenic cotton seeds and to protect farmer economy, and to ensure that Cotton Seed Regulation law is in consonance with National Seed Policy, 2002, the State Legislature enacted the Act, namely Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as \u0027the 2007 Act\u0027).\n\n5. The salient features of the Act are to constitute and appoint a Controller at the State level, to notify the Seed Testing Laboratories and to curtail the supply of spurious or inferior quality of seed. The Act also provides for evolving an efficient regulatory system which enables effective quality assurance, supply, distribution at fair price as well as punishment for violation of provisions of the Act. The Act contains a mechanism for providing adequate compensation to the farmers in the event of supply of inferior quality of cotton seed. The Act incorporates a regulatory mechanism for regulation of trade of transgenic and genetically modified varieties by way of compulsory DNA finger printing tests or genetic purity test, mandatory registration of all types of cotton seed produced in the State or imported to the State.\n\n6. Section 2 of the 2007 Act defines the expression \u0027Controller\u0027 to mean the Cotton Seed Controller appointed by the Government under Section 3 of the Act. Section 5(1)(b) of the Act empowers the Controller to grant compensation to the farmers. Section 7 of the Act deals with compensation to farmers\u2026" ], "Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2007": [ "COMMON ORDER : (Per the Hon\u2019ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)\n\nThe petitioners are the companies incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and are inter alia engaged in the business of research , development, production, marketing and sale of seeds. The petitioners in these writ petitions have assailed the validity of Section 5(1)(b) and Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 as well as the Rules 27, 28 and 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2007 on the ground that the same are unconstitutional. The petitioners, in addition, have assailed the validity of the Order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the Chairman, District Level Committee granting compensation in favour of the farmers. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra.", "7. Under Section 20 of the aforesaid Act, the Rules, namely the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as \u0027the 2007 Rules\u0027) have been framed. Part VI of the aforesaid Rules deals with compensation to farmers. Rule 27 prescribes the action to be taken by the Seed Inspector if a complaint is lodged with him, whereas Rule 28 prescribes the procedure for handling field complaints lodged by the farmers. Rule 29 prescribes for an Appeal to the Appellate Authority. Rules 27, 28 and 29 of the 2007 Rules read as under:\n\n\u002727. Action to be taken by the seed inspector if a complaint is lodged with him. - (1) If farmer has lodged a complaint in writing in Form \u2018V\u2019 about the failure of cotton crop due to inferior quality of cotton seeds supplied to him, the Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers, the cash bill and a sample of cotton seeds to the extent possible from the complainant for establishing source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the cause of failure of crop\u2026\u0027" ], "Article 14": [ "It is further submitted that the impugned provisions are violative of rule of law as well as Article 14, as payment of compensation is an adjudicatory function, which has been left to the executive body, thereby allegedly denying an impartial judicial process." ], "Companies Act, 1956": [ "COMMON ORDER : (Per the Hon\u2019ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)\n\nThe petitioners are the companies incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and are inter alia engaged in the business of research , development, production, marketing and sale of seeds. The petitioners in these writ petitions have assailed the validity of Section 5(1)(b) and Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 as well as the Rules 27, 28 and 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2007 on the ground that the same are unconstitutional. The petitioners, in addition, have assailed the validity of the Order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the Chairman, District Level Committee granting compensation in favour of the farmers. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra." ], "Constitution of India": [ "4. The State Legislature also noticed Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India which requires the State to make statutory prescription so as to make available the commodities essential at the fair price. Therefore, in the interest of farming fraternity and in order to ensure free flow of supply, equal distribution and price of all cotton seeds including transgenic cotton seeds and to protect farmer economy, and to ensure that Cotton Seed Regulation law is in consonance with National Seed Policy, 2002, the State Legislature enacted the Act, namely Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018the 2007 Act\u2019)." ], "Constitution of India (Article 14)": [ "10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned provisions purport to breach the principles of separation of powers and give judicial powers of adjudication and assessment of compensation with regard to the determination of loss and payment of compensation to the executive body, which is a committee. It is further submitted that Rule 28 of the 2007 Rules is arbitrary and discriminatory, inasmuch as, despite the fact that every dispute will have two parties to it, the impugned Rule purports to include the representative of the farmers only, without including any corresponding representative of seed manufacturer industry. It is further submitted that the impugned provisions are violative of rule of law as well as Article 14, as payment of compensation is adjudicatory function, which has been left to the executive body. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pareena Swarup vs. Union of India1, Union of India vs. Madras Bar Association2, A.K.Behera vs. Union of India3 and State of Gujarat vs. Utility Users\u2019 Welfare Association4." ], "Environment Protection Act, 1986": [ "3. The expression \u201ccotton seed\u201d was deleted by way of amendment w.e.f. 24.12.2006 from the Schedule of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Rules made thereunder and the Rules for Manufacture, Use/Import/ Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms / Genetically Engineered Organism or Cells, 1989 deal with only biosafety aspects of transgenic cotton seed. The State Legislature noticed that traders who were dealing in cotton seed including transgenic cotton seeds have been resorting to dubious methods and exploitation of poor farmers, particularly in respect of scarce type of cotton seed. The said methods and exploitation of farmers led them into debt trap and sometimes suicides as well. It was further noticed by the State Legislature that multinational companies were taking undue advantage of their monopoly in respect of scarce type of cotton seed." ], "Essential Commodities Act, 1955": [ "3. The expression \u201ccotton seed\u201d was deleted by way of amendment w.e.f. 24.12.2006 from the Schedule of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Rules made thereunder and the Rules for Manufacture, Use/Import/ Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms / Genetically Engineered Organism or Cells, 1989 deal with only biosafety aspects of transgenic cotton seed. The State Legislature noticed that traders who were dealing in cotton seed including transgenic cotton seeds have been resorting to dubious methods and exploitation of poor farmers, particularly in respect of scarce type of cotton seed. The said methods and exploitation of farmers led them into debt trap and sometimes suicides as well. It was further noticed by the State Legislature that multinational companies were taking undue advantage of their monopoly in respect of scarce type of cotton seed." ], "Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938": [ "15. It is noteworthy that function of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to the administrative or executive bodies under several enactments. We may refer to few such statutory provisions. However, reference to such provisions is only illustrative, and not exhaustive. For instance, under Section 9 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, the Collector is empowered to deal with claim for compensation in respect of land affected by a declaration, which may be issued under Section 3 of the Act. Under Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938, the Collector is empowered to assess compensation in respect of any damage to person or property or interference of rights or privileges arising from military manoeuvres. Another Act, namely, the Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949, provides that compensation shall be payable for any damage to person or property or interference with the rights, privileges or interests arising from artillery practice. The reference to these laws is only to illustrate that administrative or executive bodies are often tasked with such functions.", "15. It is noteworthy that function of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to the administrative or executive bodies under several enactments. We may refer to few such statutory provisions. However, reference to such provisions is only illustrative, and not exhaustive. For instance, under Section 9 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, the Collector is empowered to deal with claim for compensation in respect of land affected by a declaration, which may be issued under Section 3 of the Act. Under Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938, the Collector is empowered to assess compensation in respect of any damage to person or property or interference of rights or privileges arising from military manoeuvres. Another Act, namely, the Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949, provides that compensation shall be payable for any damage to person or property or interference with the rights or privileges arising from Seaward Artillery practice. Section 6 of the aforesaid Act deals with the method of compensation. Section 6 empowers the Collector to depute revenue officers for assessment of compensation. Similarly, Section 27 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, empowers Collector to assess total compensation to be paid in respect of the land which is sought to be acquired under the Act. Thus, under several statutory provisions, the work of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to executive." ], "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013": [ "15. It is noteworthy that function of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to the administrative or executive bodies under several enactments. We may refer to few such statutory provisions. However, reference to such provisions is only illustrative, and not exhaustive. For instance, under Section 9 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, the Collector is empowered to deal with claim for compensation in respect of land affected by a declaration, which may be issued under Section 3 of the Act. Under Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938, the Collector is empowered to assess compensation in respect of any damage to person or property or interference of rights or privileges arising from military manoeuvres. Another Act, namely, the Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949, provides that compensation shall be payable for any damage to person or property or interference with the rights or privileges arising from Seaward Artillery practice. Section 6 of the aforesaid Act deals with the method of compensation. Section 6 empowers the Collector to depute revenue officers for assessment of compensation. Similarly, Section 27 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, empowers Collector to assess total compensation to be paid in respect of the land which is sought to be acquired under the Act. Thus, under several statutory provisions, the work of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to executive." ], "Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949": [ "15. It is noteworthy that function of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to the administrative or executive bodies under several enactments. We may refer to few such statutory provisions. However, reference to such provisions is only illustrative, and not exhaustive. For instance, under Section 9 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, the Collector is empowered to deal with claim for compensation in respect of land affected by a declaration, which may be issued under Section 3 of the Act. Under Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938, the Collector is empowered to assess compensation in respect of any damage to person or property or interference of rights or privileges arising from military manoeuvres. Another Act, namely, the Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949, provides that compensation shall be payable for any damage to person or property or interference with the rights, privileges or interests arising from artillery practice. The reference to these laws is only to illustrate that administrative or executive bodies are often tasked with such functions.", "15. It is noteworthy that function of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to the administrative or executive bodies under several enactments. We may refer to few such statutory provisions. However, reference to such provisions is only illustrative, and not exhaustive. For instance, under Section 9 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, the Collector is empowered to deal with claim for compensation in respect of land affected by a declaration, which may be issued under Section 3 of the Act. Under Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938, the Collector is empowered to assess compensation in respect of any damage to person or property or interference of rights or privileges arising from military manoeuvres. Another Act, namely, the Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949, provides that compensation shall be payable for any damage to person or property or interference with the rights or privileges arising from Seaward Artillery practice. Section 6 of the aforesaid Act deals with the method of compensation. Section 6 empowers the Collector to depute revenue officers for assessment of compensation. Similarly, Section 27 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, empowers Collector to assess total compensation to be paid in respect of the land which is sought to be acquired under the Act. Thus, under several statutory provisions, the work of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to executive." ], "Seeds (Control) Order, 1983": [ "2. In the year 1955, the Parliament enacted Essential Commodities Act. The law relating to seeds is governed by the Seeds Act, 1966. The provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966 regulate the quality of seed in respect of notified varieties. Over the period of time, there has been a substantial change of pattern of agriculture particularly in usage of seed. Therefore, the provisions of the Act have been found to be inadequate for enforcement in respect of quality of cotton seed and regulation of trade of non-notified cotton varieties, research hybrid varieties etc., as a result the entire economy of farmers is affected. Seed was initially declared to be an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Government of India in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has issued Seeds (Control) Order, 1983." ], "Seeds Act, 1966": [ "2. In the year 1955, the Parliament enacted Essential Commodities Act. The law relating to seeds is governed by the Seeds Act, 1966. The provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966 regulate the quality of seed in respect of notified varieties. Over the period of time, there has been a substantial change of pattern of agriculture particularly in usage of seed. Therefore, the provisions of the Act have been found to be inadequate for enforcement in respect of quality of cotton seed and regulation of trade of non-notified cotton varieties, research hybrid varieties etc., as a result the entire economy of farmers is affected. Seed was initially declared to be an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Government of India in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has issued Seeds (Control) Order, 1983." ], "The Constitution of India": [ "16. The issue whether the judicial power can be vested in any authority other than a Court has been examined by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies Limited vs. P.N.Sharma6. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision dealt with the issue whether the State of Punjab, exercising the appellate jurisdiction under Rule 6(6) of Punjab Welfare Officers Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1952 is a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 136(1) of the Constitution of India and in paragraphs 9, 29, 30 and 44, held as under:" ], "Works of Defence Act, 1903": [ "15. It is noteworthy that function of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to the administrative or executive bodies under several enactments. We may refer to few such statutory provisions. However, reference to such provisions is only illustrative, and not exhaustive. For instance, under Section 9 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, the Collector is empowered to deal with claim for compensation in respect of land affected by a declaration, which may be issued under Section 3 of the Act. Under Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938, the Collector is empowered to assess compensation in respect of any damage to person or property or interference of rights or privileges arising from military manoeuvres. Another Act, namely, the Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949, provides that compensation shall be payable for any damage to person or property or interference with the rights, privileges or interests arising from artillery practice. The reference to these laws is only to illustrate that administrative or executive bodies are often tasked with such functions.", "15. It is noteworthy that function of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to the administrative or executive bodies under several enactments. We may refer to few such statutory provisions. However, reference to such provisions is only illustrative, and not exhaustive. For instance, under Section 9 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, the Collector is empowered to deal with claim for compensation in respect of land affected by a declaration, which may be issued under Section 3 of the Act. Under Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938, the Collector is empowered to assess compensation in respect of any damage to person or property or interference of rights or privileges arising from military manoeuvres. Another Act, namely, the Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949, provides that compensation shall be payable for any damage to person or property or interference with the rights or privileges arising from Seaward Artillery practice. Section 6 of the aforesaid Act deals with the method of compensation. Section 6 empowers the Collector to depute revenue officers for assessment of compensation. Similarly, Section 27 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, empowers Collector to assess total compensation to be paid in respect of the land which is sought to be acquired under the Act. Thus, under several statutory provisions, the work of assessment of compensation has been entrusted to executive." ], "the 2007 Act": [ "9. On the basis of the complaints made by the farmers, the District Level Committee passed orders granting compensation to the farmers. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the 2007 Act as well as the orders passed by the District Level Committee under the 2007 Act, granting compensation.", "11. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents has submitted that the main object of the 2007 Act and the 2007 Rules is to protect the farmers against the failure of cotton crop due to inferior quality of cotton seeds. It is further submitted that the District Level Committee is constituted for assessment and evaluation of crop losses sustained by the farmers due to poor germination or susceptibility to the pests and diseases or genetic impurity. It is submitted that the representative of the seed manufacturer and the complainant farmer are to be invited at the time of field inspection and also at the time of hearing of the Committee. It is contended that under the 2007 Act, timelines are fixed for lodging the complaint and for disposal of the complaint. It is further contended that cotton is 120 day crop and therefore, the farmer is entitled to get his complaint adjudicated within the time limit. It is also contended that the 2007 Rules apply only to cotton crop and not for any other crops as cotton is only rainfed commercial crop, which is cultivated by the small and marginal farmers, who constitute 80% of the total farmers. It is pointed out that the writ petitions suffer from non-joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as the farmers have not been impleaded in these writ petitions. Therefore, the issue of validity of the orders granting compensation in favour of the farmers cannot be examined in these writ petitions. In support of his submissions, learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Directorate of Enforcement, rep. by its Assistant Director vs. Karvy India Realty Limited5." ], "the 2007 Rules": [ "Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned provisions purport to breach the principles of separation of powers and give judicial powers of adjudication and assessment of compensation with regard to the determination of loss and payment of compensation to the executive body, which is a committee. It is further submitted that Rule 28 of the 2007 Rules is arbitrary and discriminatory, inasmuch as, despite the fact that every dispute will have two parties to it, the impugned Rule purports to include the representative of the farmers only, without including any corresponding representative of seed manufacturer industry. It is further submitted that the impugned provisions are violative of rule of law as well as Article 14.", "10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned provisions purport to breach the principles of separation of powers and give judicial powers of adjudication and assessment of compensation with regard to the determination of loss and payment of compensation to the executive body, which is a committee. It is further submitted that Rule 28 of the 2007 Rules is arbitrary and discriminatory, inasmuch as, despite the fact that every dispute will have two parties to it, the impugned Rule purports to include the representative of the farmers only, without including any corresponding representative of seed manufacturer industry. It is further submitted that the impugned provisions are violative of rule of law as well as Article 14, as payment of compensation is adjudicatory function, which has been left to the executive body. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pareena Swarup vs. Union of India1, Union of India vs. Madras Bar Association2, A.K.Behera vs. Union of India3 and State of Gujarat vs. Utility Users\u2019 Welfare Association4." ], "the Rules for Manufacture, Use/Import/Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms / Genetically Engineered Organism or Cells, 1989": [ "3. The expression \u201ccotton seed\u201d was deleted by way of amendment w.e.f. 24.12.2006 from the Schedule of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Rules made thereunder and the Rules for Manufacture, Use/Import/ Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms / Genetically Engineered Organism or Cells, 1989 deal with only biosafety aspects of transgenic cotton seed. The State Legislature noticed that traders who were dealing in cotton seed including transgenic cotton seeds have been resorting to dubious methods and exploitation of poor farmers, particularly in respect of scarce type of cotton seed. The said methods and exploitation of farmers led them into debt trap and sometimes suicides as well. It was further noticed by the State Legislature that multinational companies were taking undue advantage of their monopoly in respect of scarce type of cotton seed." ] }, "held": "The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the provisions do not breach separation of powers and lawfully empower the District Level Committee to determine compensation. The petitions lacked merit and were dismissed without costs, and all pending applications were closed.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": [ "Whether the State legislature can regulate and fix cotton seed sale prices", "whether conferring adjudicatory power to a District Level Committee violates separation of powers", "whether the 2007 Act and its rules are arbitrary or discriminatory by excluding seed manufacturers\u2019 representation", "whether granting compensation under the 2007 Act infringes due process or Article 14", "whether a District Level Committee can lawfully exercise judicial or quasi-judicial authority." ], "location": null, "prayer": "The petitioners in these writ petitions have assailed the validity of Section 5(1)(b) and Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 as well as the Rules 27, 28 and 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2007 on the ground that the same are unconstitutional. The petitioners, in addition, have assailed the validity of the Order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the Chairman, District Level Committee granting compensation in favour of the farmers.", "reserved_date": null, "second_party": [ "1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad, and others" ], "statutes": { "Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007": "4. The State Legislature also noticed Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India which requires the State to make statutory prescription so as to make available the commodities essential at the fair price. Therefore, in the interest of farming fraternity and in order to ensure free flow of supply, equal distribution and price of all cotton seeds including transgenic cotton seeds and to protect farmer economy, and to ensure that Cotton Seed Regulation law is in consonance with National Seed Policy, 2002, the State Legislature enacted the Act, namely Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as \u0027the 2007 Act\u0027).\n\n9. On the basis of the complaints made by the farmers, the District Level Committee passed orders granting compensation to the farmers. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the 2007 Act as well as the orders passed by the District Level Committee under the 2007 Act, granting compensation.\n\n11. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents has submitted that the main object of the 2007 Act and the 2007 Rules is to protect the farmers against the failure of cotton crop due to inferior quality of cotton seeds. It is submitted that the representative of the seed manufacturer and the complainant farmer are to be invited at the time of field inspection and also at the time of hearing of the Committee.\n\n19. The expression \u2018cotton seed\u2019 was deleted from the Schedule of Essential Commodities Act by way of Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2006, which came into force on 24.12.2006. The State Legislature therefore enacted the 2007 Act in the interest of the farming fraternity and in order to ensure free flow of supply, equal distribution and fair price of all cotton seeds. The Act provides a mechanism for compensation to the farmers in the event of supply of inferior quality seed. The Act and the Rules provide for timelines to avoid delay in providing relief to farmers.", "Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2007": "COMMON ORDER : (Per the Hon\u2019ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) The petitioners in these writ petitions have assailed the validity of Section 5(1)(b) and Section 7 of 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 Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2007 on the ground that they are unconstitutional. The petitioners have also challenged the Order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the Chairman, District Level Committee granting compensation.\n\n7. Under Section 20 of the aforesaid Act, the Rules, namely the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as \u0027the 2007 Rules\u0027) have been framed. Part VI deals with compensation to farmers. Rule 27 prescribes action to be taken on a complaint, Rule 28 prescribes the procedure for field complaints, and Rule 29 provides an appeal. The Committee is entrusted with assessing crop damage and compensation.\n\n20. The Act and the Rules create a right as well as a liability. The Act empowers the District Level Committee to assess 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 constitute a breach of separation of powers is not worthy of acceptance. Rule 28 of the 2007 Rules provides that the representative of the seed producer and the complainant farmer are to be invited during field inspection and hearing of the Committee.", "Arbitration Act, 1940": "An arbitrator under the Arbitration Act, 1940 may possess court-like powers to some degree, yet remains a private adjudicator deriving authority from consent of the disputing parties. Such arrangements do not equate to state-established tribunals functioning under a statutory mandate to resolve public law questions.", "Article 136(1) of the Constitution of India": "30. The Supreme Court observed that the Indian Constitution does not rigidly confine judicial power to traditional courts. Authorities or tribunals dealing with disputes and settling them conclusively may be valid repositories of such power if they function under constitutional limits. The test involves the nature of powers, the source of authority, and procedural fairness.", "Article 14": "It is further submitted that the impugned provisions are violative of rule of law as well as Article 14, as payment of compensation is adjudicatory in nature and left to an executive body. Petitioners argued that the arrangement discriminates by failing to accord representation to seed manufacturers. The State countered that farmers\u2019 interests require direct and prompt redressal mechanisms, which do not usurp core judicial functions.", "Companies Act, 1956": "COMMON ORDER : (Per the Hon\u2019ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) The petitioners are the companies incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and are inter alia engaged in the business of research, development, production, marketing and sale of seeds. The petitioners in these writ petitions have assailed the validity of Section 5(1)(b) and Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 as well as the Rules 27, 28 and 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2007 on the ground that the same are unconstitutional. The petitioners, in addition, have assailed the validity of the Order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the Chairman, District Level Committee granting compensation in favour of the farmers.", "Constitution of India": "4. The State Legislature also noticed Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that the State make statutory prescriptions for essential commodities at a fair price. Enactment of the 2007 Act aimed to protect farmers and ensure fair distribution and pricing of cotton seeds, including transgenic seeds. The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Act, alleging arbitrariness and violation of Article 14.\n\n16. The issue of vesting judicial power in authorities other than a traditional court was addressed by a Constitution Bench in Associated Cement Companies Limited vs. P.N.Sharma, which clarified that the Indian Constitution, unlike the Australian, does not strictly prohibit conferring adjudicatory authority on non-judicial bodies so long as constitutional safeguards are observed.", "Electricity Act, 2003": "21. In State of Gujarat vs. Utility Users\u2019 Welfare Association, the Supreme Court addressed Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003, recognizing that the State Regulatory Commission could adjudicate disputes or refer them to arbitration. The Court emphasized that a tribunal must have suitably qualified members if it replaces conventional judicial forums. In the present matter, no traditional court jurisdiction was fully transferred to the District Level Committee, distinguishing it from the situation under the Electricity Act.", "Environment Protection Act, 1986": "3. The provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the Rules made thereunder address biosafety aspects of transgenic cotton seeds. Traders were noted to exploit farmers, particularly for scarce cotton seed varieties, prompting the Legislature to introduce regulatory measures under the 2007 Act to protect farmers against economic distress caused by substandard or overpriced seeds.", "Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2006": "19. This Amendment Act removed \u2018cotton seed\u2019 from the list of essential commodities, prompting the State Legislature to provide a fresh regulatory regime under the 2007 Act. The legislative objective was to address concerns over farmer exploitation by ensuring an efficient compensation mechanism and controlling seed quality through licensing and oversight.", "Essential Commodities Act": "19. The expression \u2018cotton seed\u2019 was deleted from the Schedule of the Essential Commodities Act by the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2006, effective 24.12.2006. This change led the State to legislate the 2007 Act for protecting farmers and ensuring free supply and fair sale price of cotton seeds.", "Essential Commodities Act, 1955": "3. The expression \u201ccotton seed\u201d was deleted by amendment w.e.f. 24.12.2006 from the Schedule of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Environment Protection Act, 1986 and related rules deal only with biosafety aspects of transgenic seeds. The State Legislature noticed that certain traders were exploiting poor farmers by resorting to dubious methods in cotton seed supply, often leading to debt traps and sometimes suicides. The Legislature also identified concerns about multinational companies leveraging their monopoly in scarce cotton seed types. Consequently, the 2007 Act was enacted to regulate supply, distribution, and sale price of cotton seeds.", "Industrial Disputes Act, 1947": "An authority or body deriving its adjudicatory power from agreement of parties, such as a private arbitrator or a tribunal under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not deemed a tribunal under Article 136. The Act vests certain arbitral or adjudicatory features in such bodies but does not transform them into constitutional tribunals with full judicial authority.", "Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938": "15. Under this Act, the Collector is empowered to assess compensation for damage or interference with rights arising from military manoeuvres. Such provisions exemplify how legislatures may delegate limited adjudicatory functions to executive authorities based on their expertise and operational needs, subject to constitutional safeguards.", "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013": "15. Similarly, Section 27 of this Act empowers the Collector to assess total compensation in respect of land acquired. Like other examples, it reflects the principle that administrative bodies may perform adjudicatory functions pertaining to compensation without necessarily violating the Constitution, provided procedural and substantive safeguards are maintained.", "Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949": "15. This Act provides that compensation shall be payable for damage or interference with rights due to artillery practice. Section 6 empowers the Collector to depute revenue officers to assess compensation. These instances illustrate that statutory delegations of quasi-judicial powers to executive bodies for specialized adjudication are not uncommon in Indian legislation.", "Seeds (Control) Order, 1983": "2. In the year 1955, the Parliament enacted Essential Commodities Act. The Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 was issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, prescribing controls over the quality, sale, and distribution of notified seed varieties to safeguard farmers\u2019 interests. Over time, further state-level measures were introduced to address emerging challenges in cotton seed trade and transgenic variety regulation.", "Seeds Act, 1966": "2. In the year 1955, the Parliament enacted Essential Commodities Act. The law relating to seeds is governed by the Seeds Act, 1966, which regulates the quality of seed in respect of notified varieties. Over time, agriculture patterns changed, and the provisions were found inadequate for enforcing quality standards on non-notified hybrids, affecting farmers\u2019 interests. Seed was considered an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Government of India issued the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.", "The Constitution of India": "16. The question of whether judicial power can be vested in any authority other than a Court was examined by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies Limited vs. P.N.Sharma. The Supreme Court considered whether certain entities qualify as tribunals within the meaning of Article 136(1) and recognized a flexible approach given that the Indian Constitution does not mandate an absolute separation of powers identical to that of Australia.", "Works of Defence Act, 1903": "15. It is noteworthy that the function of assessing compensation has often been entrusted to administrative or executive bodies under various enactments. Under Section 9 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, for instance, the Collector deals with compensation claims for land affected by a declaration under Section 3. This demonstrates the principle that certain specialized tasks may be assigned to executive authorities without infringing constitutional norms.", "the Rules for Manufacture, Use/Import/Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms / Genetically Engineered Organism or Cells, 1989": "3. The expression \u201ccotton seed\u201d was deleted by way of amendment w.e.f. 24.12.2006 from the Schedule to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and these Rules address biosafety aspects of transgenic cotton seed. The State Legislature viewed that traders dealing in transgenic cotton seeds resorted to exploitative practices, leading to farmer distress, necessitating comprehensive regulation." }, "statutes_headnotes": { "Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007": "\u2014 Legislative competence \u2014 District Level Committee to grant compensation for defective seeds \u2014 Challenge on grounds of separation of powers and exclusion of seed manufacturers \u2014 Mechanism ensures timely resolution for 120-day cotton crop \u2014 Held, no violation of core judicial function or Article 14 \u2014 No infringement of due process \u2014 Petitions dismissed without costs.", "Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2007": "\u2014 Constitutional validity/challenge \u2014 District Level Committee empowered to determine compensation for defective seeds \u2014 Petitioners alleged breach of separation of powers, contending adjudicatory function improperly conferred on an executive body and exclusion of seed manufacturers was arbitrary and discriminatory \u2014 Claimed violation of Article 14 \u2014 Held, conferring compensation assessment on Committee does not infringe core judicial functions \u2014 No breach of separation of powers or discriminatory treatment \u2014 Provisions valid \u2014 Petitions dismissed without costs.", "Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938": "\u2014 Collector\u2019s power to assess compensation \u2014 Act entrusts administrative authority to determine compensation for damage or interference with rights arising from military manoeuvres \u2014 Delegation to an executive body does not infringe separation of powers \u2014 No constitutional invalidity found.", "Seaward Artillery Practice Act, 1949": "\u2014 Payment of compensation for damage from seaward artillery practice \u2014 Collector empowered under Section 6 to assess damage and deputize revenue officers \u2014 Recognized as an administrative or executive function \u2014 No violation of separation of powers \u2014 Statutory practice of entrusting compensation determination to executive upheld.", "Works of Defence Act, 1903": "\u2014 Assessment of compensation by administrative bodies \u2014 Section 9 empowers Collector to deal with claims for compensation in respect of land affected by declarations under Section 3 \u2014 Similar provisions in other enactments indicate that executive authorities may assess compensation \u2014 No violation of judicial power or separation of powers \u2014 Petitions dismissed." } }, "summary": { "formatted_summary": "The petitioners, who manufacture and market cotton seeds, sought to invalidate legislation empowering a District Level Committee to award compensation to farmers for alleged seed defects. They argued that the statute and rules unconstitutionally entrusted judicial functions to an executive body, excluded seed manufacturers\u2019 representation, and violated separation of powers and equal protection. The State contended that the statute offered necessary protection to small and marginal farmers through timely, expert-led resolution of complaints. The court found no infringement of core judicial functions and held that delegating compensation assessment to the Committee was valid. The petitions were dismissed without costs." } }