Authorities endowed with judicial powers to act judicially and settle disputes in accordance with pertinent facts and legislation
Case Title: Nuziveedu Seeds Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh and others
Case No: 34708, 36673 AND 39793 OF 2012 AND 5397 OF 2016
Decided on: 27th March, 2024
Quorum: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Facts of the case
The State Government established the District Level Committee to hear farmer concerns and provide compensation. The District Collector, District Horticultural Officer, District Jt. Director of Agriculture, Crop Scientist, and nominated representatives make up the committee. Farmers have deadlines within which to file complaints about problems such as pests and poor germination, along with deadlines for compensation and disposal. The committee shall adjudicate in a judicial manner, as a tribunal appointed by the State, by weighing pertinent facts and legal requirements. In cases when the District Level Committee has not been given any adjudicatory functions, the rulings of other courts or tribunals are not relevant. Because they lacked merit, the writ petitions in this case were dismissed.
Petitioner’s Contentions
The petitioners contend that the contested clauses are unfair and arbitrary since they give an executive committee the authority to decide on compensation, in violation of the separation of powers. Since that the executive body is responsible for carrying out the adjudicatory duty of compensation adjudication, they contend that the rules violate both Article 14 and the rule of law. The petitioners also draw attention to the one-sided participation of farmers’ representatives in the dispute resolution process, as well as the lack of a representative from the seed manufacturer business. Legal precedents invoked to contest the legality of the contested provisions bolster these claims.
Respondent’s Contentions
The petitioners’ representations contend that the contested clauses are discriminatory and arbitrary in that they give the executive body judicial authority, in violation of the separation of powers. They argue that the guidelines violate Article 14 and the rule of law by favoring farmers without including representatives from the seed manufacturer business. The petitioners base their claims on rulings from the Supreme Court. Conversely, the Respondents claim that the 2007 Act and Rules, which include processes for assessing and evaluating losses, are meant to shield farmers from crop failures brought on by subpar seeds. They stress how farmers and seed manufacturers participate in the complaint procedure.
Court Analysis and Judgement
The documents cover a wide range of topics pertaining to adjudication, tribunals, and judicial authority. They address the need for authorities endowed with judicial powers to act judicially and settle disputes in accordance with pertinent facts and legislation, as well as the transfer of judicial functions to tribunals and the establishment of administrative adjudication systems outside of the court. They also emphasize the committees’ responsibility in resolving agricultural-related concerns, establishing deadlines for filing complaints, and paying farmers for crop-related issues. The materials also cover the requirements that apply to tribunal members in the event that ordinary courts relinquish their adjudicatory responsibilities.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace
Click here to read the judgement