Punjab and Haryana High Court: The present petition was filed by the petitioners, who were either the Companies involved in the business of seeds’ production/trading, or the farmers, who were aggrieved by the blanket ban imposed by the State Government on use of the hybrid paddy seeds. A Single Judge Bench of Kuldeep Tiwari J. upheld the administrative orders dated 4-4-2019 and 10-4-2019, whereby prohibition was imposed only on the use of those kinds or varieties of hybrid paddy seeds in Punjab, which were non-notified, and the use of kind or variety of hybrid seeds notified by the Government of India was allowed, as they were within the sphere of the Seeds Act, 1966 (‘Seeds Act’) and passed the test of legality.
However, the Court set aside the administrative order dated 7-4-2025, whereby the prohibition was imposed on the use of notified kinds or varieties of hybrid paddy seeds in Punjab, as it did not pass the test of legality.
Background
In the present case, the petitions were decided through a common verdict, since there was a common challenge to the administrative orders passed by the Department of Agriculture, Punjab, whereby a ban was imposed on the use of the paddy variety PUSA-44 and all types of hybrid paddy seeds (notified and non-notified kinds or varieties).
By an order dated 4-4-2019, the Director of the Department of Agriculture, Punjab imposed a prohibition on the use of all varieties of hybrid seeds in Punjab. Subsequently, by an order dated 10-4-2019, the prohibition was partially modified to permit the sowing of only such varieties of hybrid paddy seeds as have been notified by the Government of India specifically for Punjab. The prohibition in respect of all non-notified varieties was maintained. Further, by order dated 7-4-2025, the Director of the Department of Agriculture, Punjab, issued another administrative order imposing a prohibition on the use of hybrid paddy seeds, including both notified and non-notified varieties.
The aforesaid orders, were the impugned administrative orders in the present case, and they were challenged on the following grounds:
-
The State Government had no statutory authority to pass the impugned administrative orders, as the subject of restriction in movement of seeds for the purpose of sale and sowing was the subject matter of the Seeds Act.
-
The certification of seeds was the exclusive domain of the Union Government, under the Central Seed Certification Authority constituted under the Seeds Act.
-
The authorized dealers were operating in Punjab upon licenses issued under the Seeds Act, and the prime object of the said Act was to increase the agricultural production in the country and regulate the quality of certain seeds to be sold for the purpose of agriculture, including horticulture, all over India.
Issues, Analysis and Decision
1. Sphere and operation of East Punjab Improved Seeds and Seedlings Act, 1949 (‘1949 Act’)
The Court stated that the 1949 Act was enacted to promote the use of pure and certified seeds and seedling of the improved varieties of crops recommended by the Department of Agriculture in the Punjab. A comprehensive study of the provisions in the 1949 Act clearly stipulated that the sphere of operation of the said Act was to control the trade and commerce, production, supply and distribution.
However, the Court stated that undisputably, the 1949 Act was in force prior to the 1955 Act and since seeds fell within the ambit of essential commodities, therefore, by dint of Section 16 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (‘Essential Commodities Act’), the 1949 Act stood repealed.
2. Governance of seed sector PAN India
The Court stated that the PAN India, the seed sector was governed by the provisions of Seeds Act, Seed Rules, 1968 (‘Seed Rules’) and the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 (‘Seeds Order’). These three legal instruments provide a comprehensive regulatory framework for the development, production, quality regulation, sale and distribution of seeds.
Further, after perusal of the provisions of Seeds Act, the Court stated that it was evident that the State Government was not vested with any power to impose a ban upon notified kind or variety of hybrid seeds, which have legal force on account of Section 5 of the Seeds Act, which provides the power to notify kinds or varieties of seeds.
3. State Government’s power to de-notify seeds
The Court observed that in the present case, the State Government had neither separately notified any seeds as per Section 2(i) of 1949 Act, nor established any mechanism of authorized dealers as per Section 2(iv) of the 1949 Act. Rather, the State Government was following the mechanism for regulating seeds as per the Central Government enactments, i.e. the Seeds Act, Seeds Rules and the Seeds Order.
Consequently, the Court inferred that despite the Seeds Act being in force, the 1949 Act was dug out and invoked by the State Government merely to lend legal force to its decision to impose a ban on the use of notified kind or variety of hybrid seeds.
The Court stated that the Union of India has come up with a clear stand that, once a variety is notified under Section 5 of the Seeds Act, it attains a national legal character and becomes eligible for production and sale across the country in specified States and agroclimatic zones. The prescribed de-notification process must be followed, involving the Central Seed Committee, to amend, override or nullify such notification after an opportunity of being heard was given to the breeder concerned or proponent of the variety.
4. The Court stated that the Union of India had further clarified that the State Government lacked competence to declare notified varieties as unsuitable for sale or cultivationState Government’s power to impose prohibition for use of ‘notified kind or variety of hybrid seeds’
The Court stated that undisputedly, there were overlapping provisions amongst 1949 Act, Seeds Act and the Seeds Order. Further, the 1949 Act was a pre-Constitutional enactment, and after the commencement of the Constitution, the subject of seeds was included in the Concurrent List. Thereafter, the Parliament enacted Seeds Act, on subject of seeds, and it was an accepted legal proposition that the latest law repealed the earlier law inconsistent therewith.
The Court stated that the Seeds Act had constituted specific authorities to notify the kinds or varieties of seeds and the complete mechanism to be followed to regulate the production, supply and distribution of seeds. The Court stated that the State Government had neither issued any preliminary notification notifying ‘improved seeds’ or ‘seedlings’, nor issued any notification notifying ‘authorized agents’ to sell such improved seeds or seedlings, under the 1949 Act after the incorporation of the Seeds Act. Therefore, the Court opined that it clearly reflected that the 1949 Act had not been given effect to by the State Government, rather it created authorities under the Seeds Act for its implementation.
The Court stated that it is well established principle of interpretation that when two laws relate to the same subject, the construction of earlier law might be adjusted in the light of the later one, to make them consistent, unless there was an irreconcilable conflict. Thus, bearing this in mind, the Court stated that the State Government could not pass any conflicting administrative orders to nullify any act undertaken by dint of the Seeds Act.
Accordingly, the Court held that the imposition of prohibition for use of ‘notified kind or variety of hybrid seeds’, by dint of Section 5 of the Seeds Act, did not pass the test of legality, hence deserved to be quashed.
5. State Government’s power to prohibit sale of non-notified kinds or varieties of hybrid seeds
The Court stated that all the three legal instruments, i.e. Essential Commodities Act, Seeds Act and the Seeds Order, form a comprehensive regulatory framework for the development, production, quality regulation, sale and distribution of seeds. Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act empowered the competent authority to issue a prohibition order for sale of any essential commodity ordinarily kept for sale. Non notified seeds did not assume legal sanctity as assumed by notified seeds. Thus, in the present case, the prohibition had rightly been imposed by the State Government upon the non-notified seeds, and this power was conferred upon the State Government by the Seeds Act and Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Therefore, the Court stated the administrative orders dated 4-4-2019 which was partially modified vide administrative order dated and 10-4-2019, whereby prohibition was imposed only on the use of those kinds or varieties of hybrid paddy seeds in Punjab which were non-notified varieties, while allowing the use of kind or variety of hybrid seeds notified by the Government of India under the Seeds Act, was within the sphere of the Seeds Act and passes the test of legality. Therefore, the aforesaid two orders were upheld.
Further, the Court stated that the administrative order, dated 7-4-2025, whereby the prohibition was imposed on the use of notified kinds or varieties of hybrid paddy seeds in the Punjab, did not pass the test of legality. Therefore, the Court set aside the aforesaid order.
[Federation of Seed Industry of India v. State of Punjab, CWP No. 12556 of 2019, decided on 18-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Munisha Gandhi, Sr. Advocate, Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate, Gurminder Singh, Sr. Advocate, Karmanbir Singh, Advocate, Harish Mehla, Advocate, Randeep Singh Gill, Advocate and Nitish Bansal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Maninderjit Singh Bedi, A.G., Punjab, Chanchal K. Singla, Addl. A.G., Punjab, Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab, Rajeev Madaan, D.A.G., Punjab, Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, Sushant Kareer, Advocate, Sunny Saggar, Advocate and Omesh Garg, Advocate
