LatestLaws.

com
1
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.115 OF 2017

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5845 OF 2018

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.115 OF 2017

Anand S/o Nanabhau Embadwar,

Aged about 51 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o B-16, Laveera Park,
Karve Road, Near Karve Road,
Kothrud, Pune City,
Ex-Serviceman Colony,
Pune and also
R/o Netaji Chowk, Yavatmal. … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
Through Ministry of Agricultural
& Farmers Welfare,
Krushi Bhavan, New Delhi.

2. Indian Council for Agriculture

Research (I.C.A.R.),
Through its Director General,
Krishi Bhavan,
Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi.

3. Indian Agriculture Research

Institute (I.A.R.I.),
Through its Director,
PUSA Campus,
New Delhi.

4. State of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
2
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

5. The Director of Agriculture,

Agricultural Commissionerate,
State of Maharashtra,
Pune.

*6. PUSA STFR Manufactures

Association,
having its Office at
D-6, 2nd Floor Green Park
Extension,
New Delhi-110 016,
through Authorized Signatory
Shri Shubhasandesh Ramrao
Mujmule,
Age 42 years,
Occupation : Employee,
R/o Yavatmal (Maharashtra).

*7. Nagarjun Agro Chemicals Pvt.

Ltd. (Hyderabad),
Factory at B.10 Sevagram
M.I.D.C., Wardha, through its
Director Shrikant Rathi. … Respondents

*[Amended as per Hon’ble Court’s

Order dated 11-4-2018]

Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate, with Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate
for Petitioner.

Shri Praveen Swarup with Smt. Mugdha R. Chandurkar, Advocates

for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Shri A.M. Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent

Nos.4 and 5.

Shri R.N. Ghuge, Advocate for Respondent No.6.

Smt. R.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.7.

Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for Intervenor.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
3
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

WITH

WRIT PETITION No.5845 OF 2018

Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.,

Having its registered office,
Factory at G-01, D. No.6-3-1218/6/2
Street No.6 Spring Heaven,
Umahagar, Begumpeth,
Hyderabad-500016, A.P.

Factory at B-10 Sewagram MIDC,

Wardha through its Director
Shrikant Rathi. … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Agriculture and
Farmers Welfare,
Krushi Bhawan,
New Delhi.

2. Indian Council for Agriculture

Research (I.C.A.R.),
Through its Director General,
Krishi Bhavan, Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi.

3. Indian Agriculture Research Institute

(I.A.R.I.),
Through its Director PUSA Campus,
New Delhi.

4. State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
4
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

5. The Director of Agriculture,

Agricultural Commissionerate,
State of Maharashtra,
Pune.

*6. PUSA STFR Manufactures Association,

Having its Office at D-6, 2nd Floor,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi – 11016,
Through its authorized signatory
Shri Shubasandesh Ramrao Mujmule,
Age 42, Occ – Employee,
R/o Yavatmal, (Maharashtra). … Respondents

*[Amended as per Hon’ble Court’s

Order dated 10-9-2018]

Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate, assisted by

Smt. R.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Petitioner.

Shri Praveen Swarup with Smt. Mugdha R. Chandurkar, Advocates

for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Shri A.M. Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader

for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.

Shri R.N. Ghuge, Advocate for Respondent No.6.

Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Intervenor.

CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 12th DECEMBER, 2019

DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 3rd JANUARY, 2020

JUDGMENT (PER R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) :

1. Rule. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the

parties. Both these Public Interest Litigation and Writ Petition are

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
5
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

being disposed of finally by this common judgment.

2. In Public Interest Litigation as well as in Writ Petition, an

enquiry is sought in respect of manufacturing and marketing of soil

testing fertilizer recommendations without having facility of testing

of two mandatory parameters of Copper and Nitrogen during the

year 2014 to 2-5-2018. The further relief sought is to restrain the

marketing of STFR without getting its validation at least in five

different agro-climatic zones in the country. The STFR technology is

developed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 – ICAR and IARI and

commercialized by issuing licences to 14 companies/firms, including

the petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals in Writ Petition No.5845 of

2018.

3. The Indian Council for Agriculture Research (ICAR) is a

leading institution for agricultural research, education and

expansion in India with its Headquarter at New Delhi and functions

under the control of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare,

Government of India. The Indian Agriculture Research Institute

(IARI) is a premier national institute for agricultural research,

education and expansion and is also a deemed University under the

provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and

awards Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees in various agricultural

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
6
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

disciplines. It is a research wing/unit of ICAR, instrumental in

developing several technologies, missions, tools, high yield variety

of major crops and promoting agricultural mechanism in the

industry. ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil Science (IISS), Bhopal, is also

one of the constituent units of ICAR and a Society registered under

the Societies Registration Act, 1860, engaged in the development of

devices and method for measurement of soil health parameters and

fertilizer recommendations.

4. In the scheme of Soil Health Management (SHM) of the

National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA), the

Department of Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare,

Government of India, has established soil testing projects at village

level. The financial assistance is provided to a village entrepreneur

(18 – 40 age group/Self-help Group (SHG)/Farmers Joint Liability

Groups/Farmers Co-operative Societies/Farmers Producer

Organizations (FPOs)/Retail Outlets, set up by fertilizer companies/

Retailers of Fertilizer Companies/Schools/Colleges, located in the

district to establish a soil testing lab along with other accessories).

The financial assistance for the group is provided at the rate of 80%,

and for an individual at the rate of 40% of the project cost of

Rs.10,00,000/-.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
7
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

5. The SHM is one of the most important interventions under

the NMSA and it is aimed at promoting location as well as crop

specific sustainable SHM, creating and linking soil fertility maps with

macro-micro nutrient management/judicious applications for

fertilizer and organic farming sciences. The object is to improve soil

quality and profitability of farmers, employment generation for rural

youths, to improve timeliness in analysis of soil samples,

introduction of the single window approach from collection to issue

of Soil Health Card (SHC) so as to minimize tools and maximize

convenience to farmers, online delivery of Soil Health Cards to

farmers using soil health card portal and to provide soil testing

facilities to farmers at their doorstep. Under this scheme, a subsidy

is shared between the Government of India and the States in the

ratio of 60 : 40.

6. The ICAR, IARI has developed the technology of

PUSA-STFR Meter for all soil testings (PUSA is the lab and STFR

means Soil Testing and Fertilizers Recommendation).

The Soil Health Card (SHC) is a printed report that a farmer will be

handed over for each of his holdings. It will contain the status of his

soil with respect to 12 parameters as under :

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
8
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

1. pH

2. EC

3. Organic Carbon (OC)

4. Available Nitrogen (N)

5. Available Phosphorous (P)

6. Available Potassium (K)

7. Available Sulpher (S)

8. Available Zinc (Zn)

9. Available Boron (B)

10. Available Iron (Fe)

11. Available Manganese (Mn)

12. Available Copper (Co)

Based on this, the SHC also indicates fertilizer

recommendations and soil health parameters required for the

farmers.

7. There are many farmers in India who do not know which

types of crops they should grow to get maximum yield. Basically,

they do not know the quality and the type of their soil. They might

know by experience what crops grow and what crops fail. But they

do not know what they can do to improve the soil conditions. The

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
9
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

SHM scheme launched covers as many as all farmers in various

parts of the country under the scheme. In the form of SHC, the

farmers will get the report and this report will contain all details

about the soil of their particular farm.

8. The PUSA-STFR Meter technology has been brought out by

the scientists of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry (SS & AC)

Division of IARI. It was capable of testing 5 soil parameters and was

launched officially on 22-2-2012 by the Director, IARI,

New Delhi. It was commercialized through the Zonal Technology

Management and Business Promotion Development (ZTM & BPD)

Unit of IARI. The patent application entitled “Digital Soil Fertilizer

Recommendation (STFR) Meter” was filed, being No.2395/DEL/2011

dated 24-8-2011. This technology was licensed to 14 licensees

(companies and firms) firms all over the country by entering into

individual Memorandum of Agreement/Understanding (MoA/MoU)

with each licensee during 23-7-2012 to 3-12-2016. One of such

MoUs between the IARI, New Delhi, and M/s Nagarjuna Agro

Chemicals Private Limited [for short, hereinafter referred to as

“Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals”], entered into on 2-8-2014,

contains Clauses 2.1 to 2.3, which are reproduced below :

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
10
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

“Article II: Grant of License

2.1 The Licensor hereby grants to the Licensee, and the

Licensee hereby accepts at their free will, a non-exclusive
and non-transferable license in the territory as specified in
the MOU, to use the “licensed Technology”, know how,
design and blue print of Licensed Products i.e. “STFR
Meter” to manufacture and to sell and have sold and offer
to sell Licensed Products, subject to the terms and
conditions contained in this Agreement.

2.2 The Licensor does not provide any right to the

Licensee to sub-license the License/Right to
manufacture/produce the Licensed Products, or transfer
the Licensed Technology/Knowhow in any manner
whatsoever, unless specifically authorized in writing to
do so.

2.3 The territory of the licensee shall be territory of

India.”

Similar clauses are contained in MoAs/MoUs entered into

between all the remaining 13 firms/companies. The PUSA-STFR

technology in respect of which the aforesaid MoAs/MoUs are

entered into is also called “STFR, a mini lab” or “STFR Kit” or

“STFR Meter” technology developed by the ICAR and was

upgraded on 12-8-2015 to analyze the aforestated 10 parameters

(except Copper and Nitrogen). The cost of STFR Meter was

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
11
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

Rs.86,000/- for a kit having capacity to test 50 soil samples with the

facility of refilling at the cost of Rs.15,000/-.

9. It is the stand taken by the respondent Nos.2 and 3- ICAR

and IARI in the affidavit dated 27-12-2018 filed in Writ Petition that

Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals entered into MoU with ICAR-Indian

Institute of Soil Science (IISS), Bhopal, on 27-7-2014 and 7-8-2014

for improvement of STFR Meter. According to the respondent Nos.2

and 3, this is violation of non-disclosure of technology

know-how by Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals. One principal scientist of

IARI, Dr. S.C. Datta, the Inventor of STFR, informed the officer

in-charge, ZTN & BPD, IARI, on 19-3-2015 that Nagarjuna Agro

Chemicals has made “Mridaparikshak” on its own by replicating the

idea/concept of STFR Meter. It further states that the concept of

STFR Meter is that it is a programmable digital colorimeter with

menu based interactive program, dedicated to estimation of soil

available nutrients and it is the first of its kind in India. The concept

is patent protected and cannot be copied. It further states that

“Mridaparikshak” does not display the soil testing technology

developed and licensed by ICAR-IARI, but displays the soil testing

technology in collaboration with Indian Institute of Soil Science,

Bhopal.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
12
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

10. In response to above letter, the Joint Director (Research),

ICAR-IARI, Dr. K.V. Prabhu, informed the Director General, ICAR, on

6/7-4-2015 that IISS, Bhopal, a sister Institute in ICAR, appeared to

have indulged in IP (Intellectual Property) violation and, therefore,

corrective measures are required to be taken to resolve the matter.

He further informed that this type of violation of IP will harm the

morale of the investors and should be stopped in the first instance.

He informed that an urgent action was solicited before the same

situation extends to independent private public collaborations based

on ICAR technology.

11. In the Minutes of Meeting held on 13-5-2015 under the

chairmanship of Secretary, DARE, and DG, ICAR, which was

attended by DDG (NRM), DDG (Crop Science), and ADG (IPCTM)

along with the Scientists of IARI, IISS, Bhopal, and respective SMDs.

The following decision was taken unanimously in the said meeting :

(1) IISS, Bhopal, will file patent for the soil testing kits
developed by them as per the extant guidelines.
The technology shall be in the name of
“ICAR-IISS Mridaparikshak”, as is done by IARI, giving the
name “ICAR-IARI STFR Meter”.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
13
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

(2) The commercialization of the above two kits -

“ICAR-IISS Mridaparikshak” and “ICAR-IARI STFR Meter” -
has to be taken up by the respective Institutes as per the
extant ICAR guidelines.

ICAR-IISS, Bhopal, thereafter informed all the State

Governments and Union Territories on 15-7-2015 (Annexure-III to

the reply filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3) that

“Mridaparikshak”, a mini lab, is being manufactured and marketed

by Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals to provide soil testing at the farmers’

doorstep and it is compatible with SHC.

12. On 17-9-2015, the first trade agreement was signed

between the petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals and ICAR-IISS,

Bhopal, for commercialization of the technology “Mridaparikshak”, a

mini soil laboratory, capable of testing 10 parameters of soil. The

price of “Mridaparikshak” was Rs.72,000/- and of refill was

Rs.13,500/-. It is claimed that on 19-12-2015, the second

agreement between Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals and ICAR-IISS,

Bhopal, for commercialization of “Mridaparikshak” with increased

capacity to test 12 parameters was entered into between Nagarjuna

Agro Chemicals and ICAR-IISS, Bhopal. The cost of the licensed

products, i.e. upgraded “Mridaparikshak” was fixed at Rs.86,000/-

with the charges of Rs.17,000/- for refilling.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
14
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

13. In the meetings of the Institute Technology Management

Committee (ITMC), the highest body of ICAR on commercialization

of technologies, held on 18-5-2016 and 17-12-2016, the

components of Copper and Nitrogen were added in the parameters

of STFR for commercialization. However, the Deputy

Director General of ICAR, by his communication dated 13-1-2017,

informed the Director, IARI, PUSA, New Delhi, that it was decided by

the competent authority to withdraw commercialization of these

two new parameters concerning the STFR Meter technology

immediately and release them only after extensive validation across

at least five agro-climatic zones. In response to this

communication, the Acting Director, IARI, informed its compliance

on 14-1-2017. Consequently, the agreements, which were under

process for licensing of upgraded technology, were withheld and the

licensees were informed on 20/21-1-2017 by the Zonal Technology

Management and Business, Planning and Development Unit, IARI,

New Delhi, that the execution of MoU was required to be withheld

and suspended for all operations, including proto-type

developmental or training, till the validation reports were approved

by the competent authority.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
15
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

14. In the fourth meeting of ITMC, held on 25-1-2017, the

question of testing and validation of STFR Meter for

commercialization in five agro-climatic zones was discussed and it

was decided that there was no need for validation of PUSA-STFR

Meter in five agro-climatic zones, as the protypes manufactured by

the licensees had already been validated/tested and certified on soil

samples of varying characteristics. It was expressed that the

provision of five different agro-climatic zones was not earlier

included in the MoA signed with the licensees. It was unanimously

agreed that the validation of STFR Meter may be done by sending

blind samples to the licensees and asking them to test the same on

their STFR Meter and send the reports in sealed envelopes to DDG

(CS), ICAR. It was further decided that the reports on these samples

be simultaneously also sent by IARI to the DDG (CS), ICAR, and the

same be matched with the licensees’ reports.

15. In the subsequent meeting of ITMC, IARI dated 27-1-2017,

convened under the chairmanship of the Director, IARI, on the

subject of the letter dated 13-1-2017 of DDG(CS), in respect of

validation of improved STFR Meter in five agro-climatic zones, it was

once again unanimously decided that there was no technical need

for this procedure for validation of PUSA-STFR Meter in five

agro-climatic zones, as the proto-types manufactured by the

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
16
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

licensees had already been validated/tested and certified on

representative soil samples, varying in characteristics. It was also

expressed that the provision for validation of STFR Meter

manufactured by the licensees in five different agro-climatic zones

was not included in the MoA signed with the licensees. It was

decided in respect of the letter dated 13-1-2017 that the validation

of STFR Meter may be done by sending the blind samples to the

licensees and asking them to test the same on their STFR Meter and

send the report in the sealed envelope to DDG(CS), ICAR.

16. In Public Interest Litigation No.115 of 2017, filed on

10-10-2017 by Anand s/o Nanabhau Embadwar, a resident of Pune,

alleging that the STFR Meter was capable of satisfying only

10 compulsory parameters, excluding two important components of

Nitrogen and Copper. A relief is claimed on the basis of the

communication dated 13-1-2017 from ICAR to IARI that STFR Meter

Technology is required to be tested in five different climatic zones

to assure and verify the results of technology by the Institute itself

and further to conduct validation test for final product of each

manufacturer before allowing commercialization of STFR Meter.

An interim relief is claimed to direct the respondents not to allow

commercial use of STFR Meter in the market during the pendency of

the present Public Interest Litigation and also a stay to the

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
17
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

commercialization of STFR Meter. In respect of the STFR Meter, the

letter dated 6-2-2017 and 24-2-2017 of the two licensees, viz.

M/s. Sugway Agribiotech and Research Foundation, and

M/s. Om Agro Organics, seeking validation of the technology in five

agro-climatic zones are produced as Annexure-J on Pages 84 and 85

of the writ petition. It is projected that the said two licensees also

wanted validation of the STFR technology. Both these letters are

shown to have been addressed to the Director, ICAR, New Delhi.

17. On 11-10-2017, this Court passed an order issuing notice

after observing the complaint that – (a) the machines sold as mini

labs for the purposes of soil testing do not show the available

Nitrogen and Copper, (b) the Union of India and the States are both

offering huge subsidy for the purchase of these defective machines,

and (c) the respondents to take a note of the grievances and issue

suitable directions to prevent loss of public revenue, if necessary.

18. On 16-10-2017, Writ Petition No.9258 of 2017 was filed by

Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals in the High Court at Delhi. Thereafter,

an application was moved before the Apex Court for transfer of PIL

to Delhi High Court. It was disposed of on 26-3-2017 by the Apex

Court, observing that there is no ground made out for transfer of the

petition and it would be appropriate that the matter pending before

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
18
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

the Bombay High Court may be decided expeditiously. It was

observed that it would be open for the petitioner to seek

adjournment of the matter before Delhi High Court till the decision

by the Bombay High Court to avoid conflict of decisions, which can

be considered on its own merits.

19. Thereafter, Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals filed Writ Petition

No.5845 of 2018 before this Court on 30-8-2018 seeking a direction

to blacklist the licensees in respect of STFR for misrepresentation,

cheating and fraud by stating that the soil testing kit does not

qualify with all the requirements of SHM and SHC schemes. It

further seeks a direction to constitute a Committee of Experts to

check whether STFR kit specifies 12 essential parameters in

different climatic conditions. The challenge is also to the

communication dated 10-8-2018 issued by the Government of India

directing the Secretary, Agriculture Department, of all the State

Governments, to consider procurement of mini labs from the

members of STFR Association, also in addition of mini labs

developed by IISS (ICAR), Bhopal. The challenge is also to the

communication dated 2-4-2018 by ICAR superseding its decision

dated 13-1-2017 and promoting commercialization of PUSA-STFR

Meter available for analyzing all 12 parameters of SHC.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
19
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

20. It is the stand taken by the respondent No.2- ICAR in the

affidavit dated 7-8-2018 filed in PIL that the DDG(CS) directed for

re-testing of the STFR Meter on the complaint filed by Nagarjuna

Agro Chemicals and its proxies that the STFR Meter was not capable

of testing all the 12 mandatory soil elements, as stipulated in SHC.

It is stated that the expert body of ICAR visited Soil Science Division

of IARI on 21-3-2018 and 22-3-2018 to examine STFR Meter. Based

on the analysis performed, the Committee certified that the STFR

Meter was capable of analyzing all 12 parameters of SHC.

Accordingly, a report dated 22-3-2018 was submitted. Thereafter,

vide letter dated 2-4-2018, the DDG(CS) has approved the two new

parameters of STFR technology developed by IARI, New Delhi, for

further commercialization. The IARI has licensed the two new

parameters to the licensee companies for further

commercialization, making the STFR Meter (as modified) available

for analyzing all 12 parameters of SHC. It was licensed to total nine

companies, which did not include the petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro

Chemicals.

21. On 10-8-2018, the Government of India, Ministry of

Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, informed all the Secretaries of the

State Governments and Union Territories that in view of the

recommendations of the ICAR, the procurement of a mini lab for the

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
20
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

members of the STFR Association also, in addition to a mini lab

developed by IISS (ICAR), Bhopal, be considered for analyzing

12 parameters of SHC. In response to the communication of

Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals for transferring additional parameters of

Copper and Nitrogen in the PUSA-STFR Meter, it was informed on

6-3-2019 by the Zonal Technology Management and Business,

Planning and Development Unit, ICAR-IARI, New Delhi, that the

matter was sub judice and it will be decided in accordance with the

court decision. Hence, all the three communications

dated 2-4-2018, 10-8-2018 and 6-3-2019 are made the

subject-matter of challenge in writ petition filed by Nagarjuna Agro

Chemicals, by way of an amendment, which was allowed.

22. On 2-8-2019, one Civil Application No.1467 of 2019 was

filed in PIL by one Bhagwan s/o Rajeram Karmenge, claiming to be

an Agriculturist and resident of Nagpur. After going through the

contents of the application, we find that the application fully

supports the case of the petitioners in both these petitions. In fact,

the application is a replica of what is contained in both these

petitions. Paras 21 and 22 of the said application are reproduced

below :

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
21
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

“21. Despite these shortcomings, the respondent no.3

and it’s licensees have mislead the public at large by
portraying that their STFR kit can comply with the
requirement of Soil Health Management Scheme and Soil
Health Card Scheme. It is humbly submitted that due to
such false representations by some licensees and
respondent no.3, the business of the respondent no.7 was
being adversely and prejudicially affected.”

“22. The respondent no.7 therefore make several

complaints, almost 17 in number to the respondents. It is
submitted that the false information and
misrepresentation was creating immense confusion in the
agricultural market, Government Department, NGOs and
farmers, as they were falsely representing their product
STFR Meter Kit is sufficient to analyze all the mandatory
parameters, required for Soil Health Card. It is pertinent
to note that the STFR Meter licensed by the respondent
no.3, is not capable by analyzing soil ascertain availability
of Copper and Nitrogen.”

The respondent No.7, referred to in the aforesaid paras, is

Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals. It is the stand taken in both these

petitions as well as in the application for intervention that on the

basis of the complaint received from M/s. Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals

Private Limited regarding misconduct and malpractices by various

technology holders of PUSA Digital STFR Meter through duplicating

features of “Mridaparikshak”, a mini lab, in the technology of PUSA

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
22
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

Digital STFR Meter, the letter is addressed by one Dr. J.S. Sandhu,

Deputy Director General (Crop Science), ICAR, to the

Under-Secretary (Vigilance-I), Vigilance Section, ICAR, New Delhi.

A copy of this letter is endorsed to the Director, IARI with the

request that the STFR Meter will not be further licensed till the

enquiry is over. It is, therefore, claimed that till such enquiry was

completed, there should be no marketing of STFR Meter.

23. The main complaint in these two petitions and the

application for intervention is that the technology of STFR Meter,

commercialized by ICAR-IARI, did not satisfy the testing of the soil in

respect of 12 parameters, including the two mandatory components

of Copper and Nitrogen till 2-4-2018, but the respondent No.3- IARI

was promoting it by acting hand-in-glove with the five licensees to

project that it satisfied such requirement of testing, which

amounted to misrepresentation and practising mischief and

cheating the farmers or agriculturists, resulting in damage of the

soil. The second complaint is that the commercialization of STFR

Meter with all 12 parameters without its validation in five different

agro-climatic zones with effect from 2-4-2018, needed to be

stopped to prevent further cheating, misrepresentation and

mischief being played upon the farmers or agriculturists and to

prevent the damage of the soil.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
23
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

24. The petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals is engaged in

commercialization of “Mridaparikshak”, a mini lab technology, as

the licensee of IISS, Bhopal. The complaint is that some of the

licensees of ICAR-IARI, viz. (i) M/s. Orlab Instruments Pvt. Ltd.,

Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, (ii) M/s. Sugway Agribiotech and Research

Foundation, Yavatmal, and (iii) M/s. Plasti Surge Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Amravati, have referred in their literature and letters to STFR Meter

as “Mini lab”, which amounts to copying the registered

trade mark of “Mridaparikshak” or “Mittiparikshak”. This was

jeopardizing the business of Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals by creating

confusion. It is the contention that the STFR Meter is not referred to

as mini lab in the MoUs of these licensees with ICAR and IARI.

25. It is not in dispute that Copper and Nitrogen are the two

mandatory parameters of soil testing. It is also not in dispute that

till 2-4-2018, the STFR Meter did not have capacity of soil testing in

respect of 12 parameters, including the two components of Copper

and Nitrogen. Though the ICAR-IARI decided to introduce two

parameters of Copper and Nitrogen on 18-5-2016 and 17-12-2016,

the same could not be commercialized till 2-4-2018. In this

background, the following questions would fall for consideration :

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
24
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

(1) Whether the respondent Nos.2 and 3 – ICAR and

IARI, have themselves at any point of time up to
2-4-2018, represented to anyone that STFR Meter has
capacity to test the soil in respect of 12 parameters,
including Copper and Nitrogen?,

(2) Whether there was any representation by any of

the licensees of ICAR and IARI up to 2-4-2018 that the
STFR Meter has capacity to test the soil in respect of
12 parameters, including Copper and Nitrogen?,

(3) Whether any such representation, either by the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 or by any of their licensees, has
misled or cheated the farmers or agriculturists and caused
damage to the soil and should there be any enquiry in
respect of it?,

(4) If the answers of any of the questions above are in

the affirmative, whether the licences issued for testing of
STFR Meter are required to be cancelled, as is claimed?,
and

(5) Should the claim of the petitioners in both these

petitions and of the intervenor to ask for the stoppage of
commercialization of STFR Meter without its validation in
respect of 12 parameters of soil testing in at least five
different agro-climatic zones be entertained?

26. No doubt that it is a serious matter, if the facts leading to

it are established by the petitioners and the intervenor. It is the

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
25
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

case of the respondent Nos.2 and 3- ICAR and IARI that such issues

are raised only with an intention to promote “Mridaparikshak”,

a mini lab, which is another technology of soil testing,

being monopolistically commercialized by the petitioner- Nagarjuna

Agro Chemicals. It is also the stand taken that the

commercialization of the components of Copper and Nitrogen on

18-5-2016 and 17-12-2016 was prolonged up to 2-4-2018, because

of unwarranted impediments created by the petitioner- Nagarjuna

Agro Chemicals. It is also the case of the ICAR-IARI that the MoUs

entered into with the licensees do not contain a stipulation that the

STFR Meter with 12 parameters shall have validation at least in five

different agro-climatic zones. If the respondents establish their

stand, it would be a more serious matter, for which the petitioners

and the intervenor will have to be held responsible.

About PUSA-STFR Meter and “Mridaparikshak”, a mini lab :

27. PUSA-STFR Meter and “Mridaparikshak” are

mini portable lab technologies, developed for measurement of soil

health parameters, fertilizer recommendations and preparing SHC.

PUSA-STFR Meter is the invention of ICAR-IARI, New Delhi, and it is

licensed to 14 licensees, during 23-7-2012 to 3-12-2016, including

the petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals, with which MoUs were

entered into on 2-8-2014 and 25-5-2016. “Mridaparikshak” is the

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
26
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

product of ICAR-IISS, Bhopal, and it is licensed only to Nagarjuna

Agro Chemicals on 17-9-2015, 19-12-2015 and/or 18-7-2016. The

object of introducing such technologies, is to improve soil quality

and to have macro and micro nutrient management/judicious

application of fertilizers to increase the profitability of

farmers/agriculturists. The financial assistance in the form of

subsidy in the ratio of 60 : 40 by the Government of India and the

State Government for its purchase is included. The cost of the

upgraded version of STFR and “Mridaparikshak” is of Rs.86,000/-

with Rs.15,000/- and Rs.17,000/- respectively as refilling charges.

The available subsidy on purchase of it, is of Rs.45,000/-. The

beneficiaries are the individuals, groups, institutions or co-operative

societies. The beneficiaries provide service of testing of soil and

fertilizer recommendation, approximately at the rate of Rs.50/- to

60/- per sample, at the doorstep of farmers.

28. Before considering the question of grant of reliefs claimed

in the PIL as well as in the Writ Petition, we have to first consider

whether any genuine public interest is involved in the matter and

whether filing of PIL is bona fide or an abuse of the process of Court.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
27
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

Lack of bona fides and genuine public interest in PIL :

29. The purchase of the STFR Meter was by availing subsidy

provided by the State Government during 2014 to 2-5-2018 without

having facility of soil testing with respect to two compulsory

parameters of Copper and Nitrogen. Though faintly, the PIL refers

to this aspect, there is no seriousness to take such an issue to its

logical end. Even during the course of the oral arguments, it was

made clear that the intention of the petitioner was not to make any

complaint in respect of it and accordingly during the entire

argument also, this aspect was neither highlighted nor emphasized.

The very object of observing this, is to see whether the petitioner in

the PIL is really interested in going ahead, with what it represented

before this Court initially, when the order dated 11-10-2017 was

passed directing the authorities of the Union of India and the State

Government to take note of the loss of public revenue by offering

huge subsidy. Neither the PIL nor the Writ Petition claim the relief

of any enquiry or investigation to find out the actual loss, if any,

caused either to the State Government or to the Union of India on

account of extending the benefit of subsidy, by direct beneficiary

transfer basis to the bank account of the beneficiary. In our view,

the PIL suffers from lack of bona fides to collect and produce

definite material by making genuine efforts and claim the relief,

which ought to have been claimed.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
28
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

30. The petitioner- Anand s/o Nanabhau Embadwar in PIL

claims himself to be an ordinary resident of Pune and a permanent

resident of Yavatmal. He claims himself to be an Agriculturist,

a Social Worker for the welfare of the farmers, and a son of the

Ex-Minister of Agriculture in the State of Maharashtra. After going

through the contents of the PIL, we find that the factual averments

made in the petition are based upon what the petitioner has learnt,

without disclosing the sources of his information. We do not find

any averment in the petition as to the nature of the social activities,

if any, undertaken by the petitioner for the welfare of the farmers

till this date. No efforts are shown to have been made to contact

the farmers and collect any information about STFR. It is not the

case that the farmers have approached him with this grievance. It

is not his case that he made any representation to any of the

authorities to ventilate any such grievance of the farmers. The PIL

does not give any details, the extent, and as to how and in what

manner there is misrepresentation, cheating, mischief or fraud, said

to have been practised upon the farmers and its actual effect on the

soil, guided by the recommendations, if any.

31. In the PIL, the petitioner has annexed certain

representations dated 1-11-2016, 8-11-2016 and 9-11-2016, said to

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
29
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

have been made by Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals, the petitioner in

the another Writ Petition. The petitioner also refers to the letter

dated 31-3-2017 at Annexure G, said to have been issued by the

District Superintending Agricultural Officer, Yavatmal, to the

Director, ICAR-IARI, PUSA, New Delhi. The two letters addressed to

the ICAR, New Delhi, by M/s. Sugway Agribiotech and Research

Foundation on 6-2-2017, and M/s. Om Agro Organics on 24-2-2017

are annexed at Annexure-J. The claim of the petitioner is that

these documents are supplied to him by Nagarjuna Agro

Chemicals, the petitioner in another Writ Petition. By the two

letters dated 9-10-2017 and 29-11-2017, the aforenamed

companies/firms have denied issuance of the letters

dated 6-2-2017 and 24-2-2017. Hence, genuineness of the letters

dated 6-2-2017 and 24-2-2017 is doubted and Nagarjuna Agro

Chemicals have shown willingness to withdraw these two letters on

affidavit.

32. It is not the case of the petitioner in PIL that he himself

has purchased or used the STFR Meter as a farmer and has fallen

prey to the alleged misrepresentation, cheating or fraud in respect

of the soil testing of his own holdings. The petitioner is not the

person directly aggrieved. The petitioner does not claim to be the

“Expert” in the field of soil testing to question the authenticity or

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
30
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

validity of STFR. It is not the averment in the PIL that the

petitioner himself made any enquiry either from the licensees or

from the farmers/agriculturists or from the beneficiaries of the

subsidy scheme of the State Government, as to the effect of the

STFR Meter. The petitioner does not explain as to how and what

kind of interest he has in the subject-matter of the PIL.

33. We, therefore, find that the petitioner- Anand s/o

Nanabhau Embadwar is a person, who can be described as the

mouthpiece or spokesperson of Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals and the

PIL is being prosecuted without having any public interest or

having no intention to subserve the interest of the farmers. The

petitioner in the PIL lacks bona fides and genuine public interest.

There is one Civil Application No.1467 of 2019 filed by one

Bhagwan s/o Rajeram Karmenge, an Agriculturist from Nagpur,

supporting the stand taken by the petitioners in both these

petitions. The application for intervention is a replica of both these

petitions and seeks intervention in the matter. This intervenor also

stands on the same footing. We allowed this application and

permitted the applicant to intervene in this matter.

Allegations of misrepresentation, mischief, cheating or

fraud :

34. In the year 2014, the STFR Meter had capacity of testing

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
31
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

of soil in respect of 5 parameters of pH, EC, Organic Carbon,

Phosphorous and Potassium. We find that this is specifically

incorporated in the MoU dated 2-8-2014, entered into between the

petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals and ICAR-IARI. It is not the

case of the petitioners that the transfer of STFR Meter technology

to other licensees was with more than 5 parameters. This

technology was upgraded on 12-8-2015 to 10 parameters and the

newly added parameters were Zinc, Sulpher, Boron, Iron,

Manganese, Lime requirement and Gypsum requirement. Though

on 18-5-2016 and 17-12-2016, the two mandatory components of

Copper and Nitrogen were decided to be added in

the parameters for commercialization of STFR Meter, the same

were not released till 2-4-2018.

35. We have not been pointed out any evidence or material to

indicate that the respondent Nos.2 and 3- ICAR and IARI have in

any manner till 2-4-2018 represented to anyone that the STFR

Meter had capacity to test the soil in respect of 12 parameters,

including Copper and Nitrogen. Though it is the case of the

petitioners that the five licensees, viz. (1) M/s. Sugway Agribiotech

and Research Foudation, Yavatmal, (2) M/s. Om Agro Organics,

Yavatmal, (3) M/s. Orlab Instruments Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad,

(4) M/s. W.S. Telematics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, and

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
32
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

(5) M/s. Plasti Surge Industries Pvt. Ltd., Amravati, have shown in

their literature that 15-parameter technology is available in the

STFR Meter, the evidence produced on record is only in respect of

M/s. Plasti Surge Industries Pvt. Ltd., Amravati, projecting that the

STFR Meter satisfies the requirement of testing in respect of

12 parameters. There is no evidence produced on record, even to

order any investigation in respect of the alleged misrepresentation,

mischief, cheating or fraud by the other licensees to project that

the STFR Meter had capacity of testing of soil in respect of

12 parameters.

36. It is unfathomable to understand as to how and in what

manner the farmers or agriculturists stand cheated. The STFR

Meters are purchased by the individuals, self-help groups of

villagers, co-operative societies, institutions, etc., by availing

subsidy from the licensees of ICAR and IARI and ultimately services

of testing of soil are provided to the farmers or agriculturists at the

cost of approximately Rs.50/- to 60/- per sample at their doorstep.

It is not the evidence produced on record to show that any of the

farmers or agriculturists have suffered actual loss or damage of soil

as a result of such services being availed.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
33
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

The first complaint dated 17-3-2016 by the

petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals :

37. Upon launching of STFR Meter, the MoU was entered into

between ICAR-IARI and Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals on 2-8-2014 for

transfer of technology, having capacity of soil testing in respect of

5 parameters of pH, EC, Organic Carbon, Phosphorus and

Potassium. The first complaint was made by the

petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals to ICAR on 17-3-2016. The

complaint was that though the model STFR Meter was upgraded to

have the facility of analyzing 10 parameters, the technology was

not transferred to it, though it was transferred to the other

companies/licensees and thus there was a biased attitude. The

complaint states that the other companies/licensees were showing

in their literature different parameters as against the original

technology transferred. The request was made to make an enquiry

into this. It is not the complaint that ICAR and IARI have acted

hand-in-glove for such projection or representation. The writ

petitioner does not claim to transfer the upgraded version of STFR

Meter, to it. In fact, by MoU dated 25-5-2016 entered into between

ICAR-IARI and Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals, the facility of

10 parameters was transferred for commercialization. We fail to

understand as to how any such grievance made in the complaint

dated 17-3-2016 survives.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
34
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

The complaints dated 1-11-2016 and 8-11-2016 by the

petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals :

38. The second complaint dated 1-11-2016 was in respect of

transfer of 15 parameters technology to the other

companies/licensees, viz. M/s. Sugway Agribiotech and Research

Foundation, Yavatmal, and M/s. Om Agro Organics, Yavatmal, but

excluding the petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals. Again the

request was to transfer such technology to it. The third complaint

dated 8-11-2016 was in respect of not providing Copper, Nitrogen

and Calcareousness to it, though such parameters were provided

to the other companies/licensees, including M/s. Orlab Instruments

Private Limited, Hyderabad, M/s. Sugway Agribiotech and Research

Foundation, Yavatmal, and M/s. Plasti Surge Industries Private

Limited, Amravati. Surprisingly, the petitions do not claim any

relief of providing such parameters. Besides it, such grievance is

purely private and individual without involving any public interest.

In the affidavit dated 19-11-2019 by ICAR-IARI, it is stated on Page

848 that on 7-1-2017, ICAR offered testing of 12 components to the

licensees, including Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals. In none of these

three complaints dated 17-3-2016, 1-11-2016 and 8-11-2016, the

demand was made that the STFR Meter, consisting of

12 parameters, was required to be sent for analysis in five different

agro-climatic zones. The projection in the complaints in writing to

ICAR is different than the projection in the petition. The claim in

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
35
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

the petition, therefore, lacks bona fides.

The complaint dated 9-11-2016 by the petitioner –

Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals :

39. In the complaint dated 9-11-2016, for the first time,

a grievance was made that the STFR Meter is not validated in

respect of 12 parameters in at least five different agro-climatic

zones. The petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals has

communicated its comparative assessment on 27-7-2014 to the

Director, IISS, Bhopal, in respect of the soil testing kit technology

developed by Acharya N.G. Ranga Agriculture University,

Hyderabad, and the STFR Meter by ICAR. It states that both these

technologies are genuinely farmers’ friendly instruments, worth

promotion amongst the peasant community. In fact,

on 22-11-2016, the petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals has

signed a satisfactory report along with the Scientists of IARI,

stating that the STFR Meter is tested and the results are found to

be highly satisfactory. It further certifies that the STFR Meter is

suitable for soil testing. Some other licensees have also conveyed

the satisfactory reports. Thus, the complaint dated 9-11-2016 had

lost its significance.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
36
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

Validation of STFR Meter in five agro-climatic zones :

40. The petitioners in both these petitions and also the

intervenor do not claim themselves as Experts who can

authoritatively tender advice of a binding nature. We asked the

learned counsels appearing for the parties to tell us the authority,

competent to say that the commercialization of STFR Meter

technology with 12 parameters, is not advisable or permissible

without its validation in at least five different agro-climatic zones.

Except the names of ICAR and IARI Scientists, no other name has

come forward. The ITMC, which is the highest body in ICAR in

respect of the decision of commercialization of technology,

consisting of Scientists, has decided in its meetings held on

18-5-2016 and 17-12-2016 to add the two components of Copper

and Nitrogen in the parameters of STFR. In the further meeting of

ITMC held on 25-1-2017 and 27-1-2017, it was decided that there is

absolutely no necessity to get all 12 parameters tested in five

different agro-climatic zones. It is the specific stand taken in

Para 17 of the affidavit filed on 16-8-2019 in PIL by the respondent

Nos.1, 2 and 3 that the STFR Meter has been added and validated,

exclusively using soils from different agro-climatic zones,

viz. Western Himalayan, Upper Gangetic Plains, Trans Gangetic

Plains, Central Plateau and Hills, Southern Plateau and Hills, West

Coast Plains and Western Dry Region. In our view, neither the

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
37
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

petitioners nor the intervenor are competent to challenge the

authority of ICAR and IARI and there is no valid basis to challenge

the same.

41. Before releasing 2 parameters of Copper and Nitrogen for

commercialization on 2-4-2018 as per the resolutions

dated 18-5-2016 and 17-12-2016 passed by ITMC, there was a

report of the Expert Body of Scientists, received on 23-2-2018. The

Committee, consisting of three Scientists, visited the Soil Science

Division of IARI on 21-3-2018 and 22-3-2018 to examine the STFR

Meter. Based on the analysis performed, the Committee certified

that the STFR Meter is capable of analyzing all 12 parameters of

SHC. We have not been pointed out any superior body of Experts

or Scientists before whom such decision can validly be challenged.

Obviously, we do not possess such expertise to judge the validity

or correctness of such reports and the decision.

The communication dated 13-1-2017 by

Dr. Jeet Singh Sandhu, the Deputy Director General
(Crop Science), IARI :

42. In both these petitions and the application for

intervention, heavy reliance is placed upon the communication

dated 13-1-2017, issued by the Deputy Director General

(Crop Science), Dr. Jeet Singh Sandhu, addressed to the Director,

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
38
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

IARI, PUSA, New Delhi, which we reproduce below :

“Dr. Jeet Singh Sandhu INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE RESEARCH

Deputy Director General KRISHI BHAWAN,
(Crop Science) DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110001.

F.No.: PPS/DDG(CS)/2016
Dated : 13th January, 2017
Dear Dr. Kaur,

It has come to my notice that 2 new parameters

(e.g. Ca and N) are being released for commercialization to all,
STFR meter-licensed companies.

In this connection, it has been decided by the

Competent Authority to withdraw commercialization of these
two new parameters concerning STFR meter technology
immediately and release them only after extensive validation
across atleast five agro-climatic zones.

(J.S. Sandhu)

Dr. (Mrs.) Ravinder Kaur,

Director,
I.A.R.I., Pusa,
New Delhi – 110 012.”

The letter contemplates release of two new parameters of

Copper and Nitrogen only after extensive validation across at least

five agro-climatic zones. We wanted to know the basis for issuance

of such letter, particularly when it is preceded by the two

resolutions dated 18-5-2016 and 17-12-2016 passed by ITMC, the

highest body in ICAR, for commercialization of technology.

43. In the affidavit dated 19-11-2019, filed by

Shri A.K. Singh, the Director, ICAR-IARI, it is stated in Para 5.II

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
39
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

as under :

“5. The second question which arise relates to the

Authority of DDG(CS) to issue letters dated
13.01.17 & 06.02.17 for validation of the two new
parameters of STFR Meter in 5 agro-climatic Zones:

II. The letter dated 13.01.2017 (Page 538) was issued

by the DDG.(CS), ICAR stating therein that it had come to
his knowledge that two new parameters (Copper and
Nitrogen) were being released for commercialization to all
PSM licensed companies and in this view of the matter,
the Competent Authority had decided to withdraw the
commercialization of the said two parameters of STFR
Meter and to release them later only after extensive
validation across at least 5 agro-climatic zones. The
record shows that the Competent Authority i.e. DG, ICAR
did not issue any such direction, thus, the orders
dated 13.1.17 & 2.4.17 were without authority. Even the
record in the Office of the then DDG (CS)/Dr. J.S. Sandhu
does not contain any instructions of the Competent
Authority. The P.S. to the then DDG (CS) has stated that
no such file / document is available on this letter
i.e. Letter dated 13.01.2017 issued by the then DDG (CS).
The file note to this effect is marked hereto as
ANNEXURE-D.”

Thus, there was neither any authority to Dr. J.S. Sandhu nor

there was any basis to issue the letter dated 13-1-2017, which was

in fact superseded on 2-4-2018.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
40
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

44. In the meeting dated 9-9-2019 called by the Secretary,

ICAR, with the officials of ICAR, IARI, IISS, Bhopal, inputs were

called for taking decision on the question of unauthorized

intervention of Dr. Jeet Singh Sandhu, the then DDG (CS), ICAR,

and it was resolved that the complaint by Nagarjuna Agro

Chemicals was that there being no sustainable reason/rationale

demanding for validation/testing of PSM in five different climatic

zones and the then DDG (CS), ICAR, Dr. Jeet Singh Sandhu, in gross

violation of Clause 4.6.4 of General Procedures of IP Management,

vide his letter dated 13-1-2017, directed arbitrarily IARI to

withdraw its decision of commercialization of two additional

parameters of Copper and Nitrogen, unless the said PSM

technology was validated/tested in five different climatic zones.

We are, therefore, of the view that there was neither any

justification nor any valid basis either for the petitioner- Nagarjuna

Agro Chemicals or for Dr. Jeet Singh Sandhu to insist upon the

requirement of testing the STFR Meter in five different

agro-climatic zones.

45. It is because of this communication dated 13-1-2017

issued by Dr. Jeet Singh Sandhu, that the STFR Meter technology

with 12 parameters could not be commercialized from 18-5-2016

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
41
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

till 2-5-2018. This is very clear from the reply dated 21-2-2017 by

ZTN & BPD, IARI, New Delhi, in response to a complaint

dated 1-11-2016 by the petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals.

Thus, during this intervening period, the petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro

Chemicals started exploiting the situation and monopolizing the

business by projecting that its Meter called “Mridaparikshak” was

having capacity of testing soil in respect of 12 parameters, which

was absent in the STFR Meter. It is the case of the respondent

Nos.2 and 3 on affidavit that during 17-9-2015 to

17-9-2019, Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals has paid the royalty of

Rs.3.21 Crores, to IISS, Bhopal, in respect of sale of

“Mridaparikshak”. Thus, the approximate business monopolistically

earned by Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals could well be imagined to be

manifold as royalty forms only an insignificant percentage of the

cost of each meter sold.

46. We made a specific query to the learned counsels

appearing for all the parties in these petitions to point out to us,

whether the technology of “Mridaparikshak”, a mini lab, was

analyzed in five different agro-climatic zones. In response to this

query, an affidavit is filed by the petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro

Chemicals on 12-12-2019 stating in Para 1 that the validation

reports received from two agro-climatic zones in respect of

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
42
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

“Mridaparikshak” were placed on record and the reports from four

more agro-climatic zones were awaited. If, according to the

petitioners, the STFR Meter required validation in five different

agro-climatic zones for its commercialization, then how could the

petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals proceed to commercialize its

Meter “Mridaparikshak”, a mini lab, without having its validation in

at least five agro-climatic zones. Surprisingly, the petitioners did

not ask for validation of “Mridaparikshak” in five different

agro-climatic zones and only targeted the PSM (STFR Meter).

47. It is the stand taken by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the

affidavit dated 27-12-2018 that the STFR Meter is a programmable

colorimeter based technology and climatic variability has nothing

to do with its functioning or performance. Moreover, at any given

location, caliberation of meter with standards (known

concentration) and testing of unknown samples are done in the

same environment, thus nullifying the effect of environment, if any.

Lab equipments (colorimeters, spectrophotometers, etc.)

manufactured in one part of the world are used without any

problem in different countries across the world under differently

variable climatic conditions. The fertilizer recommendation is

made, based on available nutrients’ content in soil, and the same

procedure is followed in case of STFR Meter. This is the standard

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
43
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

procedure followed all over the world. On soil test based fertilizer

recommendation, nowhere climatic condition is taken into

consideration. It is the stand taken that there is no basis for the

claim of the petitioners that the STFR Meter is required to be tested

in five different agro-climatic zones and by the logic given by the

petitioners, it may not be possible at all to commercialize such

equipment given large climatic variability in different countries.

We cannot entertain any doubt in respect of such stand taken by

the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Alleged malpractices by the licensees of STFR Meter in

duplicating “Mridaparikshak” :

48. The petitioners have placed heavy reliance upon the

communication dated 6-2-2017, said to have been written by

Dr. Jeet Singh Sandhu, the Deputy Director General (Crop Science),

referring to the complaint, said to have been received from

M/s. Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Private Limited regarding the

misconduct and malpractices by various technology holders of

PUSA Digital STFR Meter through duplicating features of

“Mridaparikshak”, a mini lab, in the technology of PUSA Digital

STFR Meter. We reproduce below a copy of this communication

dated 6-2-2017, which is on Page 176 of Writ Petition,

as Annexure 14 filed by the petitioner.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
44
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

“Dr. Jeet Singh Sadhu INDIAN COUNCIL OF

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
KRISHI BHAVAN,
DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD
ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110 001

D.O.No.PPS.DDG/(CS)/2017
Dated the 6th Feb. 2017

A Complaint has been received from M/s. Nagarjuna Agro

Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. regarding the misconduct and malpractices
by various technology holders of PUSA Digital STFR Meter
through duplicating features of Mridaparikshak Mini Lab in the
techynology of PUSA Digital STFR Meter.

The whole complaint is enclosed for further necessary

action at your end.
Sd/-
(N.S. Sandhu)
Deputy Director General (Crop Science)

To
Sh. S.K. Sinha
Under Secretary (Vig.I)
Vigilance Section
ICAR, Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi-1.

CC to Director IARI with the request of STFR Meter will not be

further licensed till enquiry is over.”

49. It is expressed by the petitioners that such complaint

needs necessary investigation. This letter dated 6-2-2017 is

written to the Under Secretary, Vigilance Section, ICAR, New Delhi,

and a copy of it, is forwarded to the Director, IARI, with a request

that STFR Meter not to be further licensed till the enquiry is over.

In Para 20 of the Petition, Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals claimed to

have made a detailed complaint, on the basis of which the letter

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
45
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

dated 6-2-2017 was issued. We repeatedly made inquiries from

the petitioners, intervenors and the respondents in respect of such

a complaint. We are specifically told by all the parties that the

copy of such a complaint is neither available with the petitioners

nor in the office of ICAR-IARI. It is the specific stand of the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 that in fact there was no such complaint.

What we find is that this is an instance of manipulating the

situation on the basis of bogus and ingenuine claim. Thus, the

claim in the petitions and the application for intervenor is based

upon falsity of facts.

50. Perusal of the letter dated 6-2-2017, reproduced above,

shows that the complaint of the petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro

Chemicals is regarding misconduct and malpractices by various

technology holders of PUSA Digital STFR Meter through duplicating

features of “Mridaparikshak” Mini Lab in the technology of

PUSA Digital STFR Meter. The request to the Director, IARI, at the

bottom of the letter is that the STFR Meter will not be further

licensed till the enquiry is over. Though none of the parties could

tell us about the complaint referred to in this communication,

we find that it may be referable to the complaint dated 8-11-2016

against three licensees. We are surprised as to how the complaint

by the petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals in respect of violation

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
46
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

of intellectual property rights by duplicating “Mridaparikshak”

can be entertained and investigated into by ICAR and IARI.

Obviously, this is a matter between Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals and

the other licensees of ICAR and IARI and there is no obligation upon

the inventor of the STFR Meter to take any action against such

licensees. We, therefore, do not find any justification or valid

reason to direct that the STFR Meter will not be further licensed till

the enquiry is over.

Genuineness of the complaints dated 6-2-2017, 24-2-2017

and 31-3-2017 :

51. The petitioners have produced on record the letters

dated 6-2-2017 and 24-2-2017 from two licensees of PUSA-STFR,

viz. M/s. Sugway Agribiotech and Research Foundation and

M/s. Om Agro Organics, respectively regarding validation of

technology in five agro-climatic zones. Though these letters are

addressed to the Director, ICAR, it is the stand taken that these

letters were actually received in the office of the Director, ICAR, on

13-10-2017, i.e. after filing of PIL. It is the stand taken by the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 that M/s. Sugway Agribiotech and

Research Foundation have made it clear in the letters

dated 6-2-2017 and 24-2-2017 to IARI demanding validation in five

agro-climatic zones. It is the case of the respondent Nos.2 and 3

that these letters are fabricated. It is also the affidavit filed by the

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
47
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Writ Petition on 19-11-2019 stating that

the aforesaid licensees have also clarified on 9-10-2017 and

29-11-2017 in writing that they had never issued any such letter

demanding validation in five agro-climatic zones. Thus, the claim

of the petitioner is based upon false documents. The learned

Senior Advocate Shri Bhangde has shown willingness on the part of

the petitioners to withdraw both these letters

dated 6-2-2017 and 24-2-2017 to IARI. Thus, our opinion about

falsity of claim stands confirmed.

52. The petitioners have relied upon the communication

dated 31-3-2017, said to have been issued by the District

Superintending Agricultural Officer, Yavatmal, in the name of

Director, ICAR-IARI, New Delhi, requesting for supply of information

as to whether PUSA-STFR Meter Kit is capable of testing of

12 mandatory soil elements and whether it is being marketed by

M/s. Plasti Surge Industries Private Limited, Amravati. The

information is asked to avoid misutilization of Government funds

by way of subsidy. It is the stand taken by the respondent Nos.2

and 3 in Para 27 of the affidavit dated 27-12-2019 that this letter

was received by ICAR on 13-10-2017, i.e. after more than six

months’ period of its issuance, and it was only a photocopy and not

the original. It is neither addressed to the petitioner nor any copy

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
48
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

of it, is forwarded and hence the veracity of this letter is

questioned.

53. Shri Bhangde, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for

the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5845 of 2018,, invited our

attention to various communications issued by the State

Government, Department of Agriculture, the Commissioner of

Agriculture, and the District Agricultural Superintendent during

12-1-2017 till 6-11-2017. We have gone through all these

communications and find that these communications take note of -

(i) the fact that the STFR Meter does not satisfy the requirement of

soil testing in respect of 12 mandatory parameters,

(ii) that another technology of “Mridaparikshak”, a mini lab,

satisfies the requirement of testing of soil in respect of

12 mandatory parameters, and (iii) the STFR Meter technology,

therefore, may not be admissible for getting subsidy from the State

Government and it is only “Mridaparikshak”, commercialized by

Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals, which is admissible for the subsidy

from the State Government. We fail to understand as to how

various departments under the State Government are mobilized to

defeat the commercialization of STFR Meter, which is the

technology developed, patented and owned by the authenticated

agency of the Government of India, i.e. ICAR and IARI, and to

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
49
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

promote the monopolistically commercialized technology of

“Mridaparikshak”, a mini lab, owned by IISS, Bhopal, a Unit of ICAR,

and marketed only and exclusively by Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals

to its own advantage.

54. Our research work on the aforestated two aspects reveals

that the petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals has been

instrumental in misleading and misrepresenting various

Government departments for commercial profiteering and gain

without having any genuine and bona fide interest in raising such

issues. For this purpose, the sequence of significant events has to

be noticed. The STFR Meter technology was initially having

capacity of soil testing in respect of 5 parameters and it was

licensed to Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals under the MoU

dated 2-8-2014. It was subsequently upgraded to 10 parameters

on 12-8-2015. The petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals entered

into first MoU on 17-9-2015 with IISS, Bhopal, in respect of

“Mridaparikshak”, having capacity of soil testing with 10

parameters. The first complaint was made by Nagarjuna Agro

Chemicals on 17-3-2016 to ICAR-IARI for providing 10 parameters

of STFR Meter and accordingly it was made available to it under

another MoU dated 25-5-2016. On 18-5-2016, the ITMC of ICAR

decided to introduce the parameter of Copper in the STFR Meter, in

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
50
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

its meeting dated 18-5-2016. On 18-7-2016, the additional three

parameters were added in “Mridaparikshak”. Thus,

“Mridaparikshak” was having capacity of testing of soil in respect

of 13 parameters.

55. In the background of the aforesaid events, the petitioner-

Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals made a complaint on 9-11-2016 that the

STFR Meter is required to be validated at least in five agro-climatic

zones. Though on 17-12-2016, one more important parameter of

Nitrogen was added in the STFR Meter, the two parameters of

Copper and Nitrogen could not be released till 2-4-2018 for

commercialization because of the complaint made by the writ

petitioner, which was acted upon by Dr. Jeet Singh Sandhu, the

Deputy Director General, on 13-1-2017, and by the State

Government, through its Commissioner of Agriculture, by issuing

the communication dated 17-1-2017. The petitioner was successful

in preventing the further licensing of STFR Meter on the basis of

the communication dated 6-2-2017 by Dr. Jeet Singh Sandhu.

The pendency of PIL and the order dated 11-10-2017 passed by

this Court was also utilized to perpetrate the design to

monopolistically commercialize “Mridaparikshak” up to 2-4-2018.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
51
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

56. In view of above, we hold that the petitioners or the

intervenor have failed to make out any case of misrepresentation,

mischief, cheating or fraud on the farmers or other beneficiaries in

respect of commercialization of STFR Meter, having capacity to test

the soil with regard to 12 parameters, including Copper and

Nitrogen. There is no case made out that the STFR Meter is

required to be validated at least in five different agro-climatic

zones before its commercialization or that its marketing is required

to be stopped. The complaint of misconduct or malpractices by

various technology holders of PUSA Digital STFR Meter through

duplicating features of “Mridaparikshak” Mini Lab in the technology

of PUSA Digital STFR Meter, is a commercial and private dispute,

for which the petitioners and the intervenor have appropriate

remedy to avail and there is no question of any enquiry or

investigation in respect of these matters to be entertained by this

Court.

57. On the contrary, we find that both these petitions and the

application for intervention are actuated by ulterior motive of

having commercial gain by eliminating the competition and

creating monopoly using the process of the Court. This is nothing

but an abuse of the process of the Court.

The petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals has made inconsistent

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
52
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

and contradictory claims. It did not want to lose the benefits of

STFR Meter, but wanted its marketing by others to be prohibited.

The litigation is unnecessarily dragged on to spend valuable time

of the Court for several days and the petitioners and the intervenor

are responsible for it.

58. In our view, the Court has to be intolerant to such

situation and the practice of filing such frivolous and vexatious

litigation, without having any genuine interest and lacking in all

bona fides. It needs to be curbed and treated with iron hands,

so as to deter the litigants from taking the Court for a ride by

misusing the process. The respondent Nos.2 and 3- ICAR and IARI

are the Government of India’s establishments consisting of

renowned Scientists having expertise in the field. Their bona fides

are not questionable. It is unfortunate that one of its Units,

i.e. IISS, Bhopal, is licensing the promotion of commercial interest

of Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals, which is having hostile attitude

towards its parent establishment. We expect the respondent Nos.2

and 3- ICAR and IARI to initiate and take action for violation of

Clause 2.2 of its MoU against the petitioner and to carry it to logical

end. If possible, to blacklist the petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro

Chemicals in accordance with law.

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::

 LatestLaws.com
53
pil115.17 & wp5845.18.odt

59. For the reasons stated above, we dismiss both these

petitions with the following order as to costs :

(1) The petitioner- Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals in Writ

Petition No.5845 of 2018, the petitioner- Anand s/o Nanabhau
Embadwar in PIL No.115 of 2017, and the
intervenor- Bhagwan s/o Rajeram Karmenge in Civil
Application No.1467 of 2019 filed in PIL, are hereby held
liable - jointly and severally - to pay the total costs of
Rs.50,00,000/- [Rupees Fifty Lakhs], to be paid to the
respondent Nos.2 and 3- ICAR and IARI within a period of four
weeks from today.

(2) The costs be divided in two parts of Rs.25,00,000/-

[Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs] each, to be deposited in the
account of the respondent Nos.2 and 3- ICAR and IARI
respectively.

(3) We expect the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to proceed to

take suitable action against the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.5845 of 2018, as is permissible in law.

60. Put up both these matters after a period of four weeks to

see the compliance of this order.

(Milind N. Jadhav, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.)

PD Lanjewar,
PS

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2020 15:25:27 :::