Biosecurity fear after 7 years? Calcutta High Court quashes ‘indigestible’ ban on pest management firm linked to CBI probe

“The state contends that the allegation against the petitioners is serious in nature and had a direct impact on the aspect of protecting the agricultural bio-security of the country, and in view of the sensitivity of the task involved, the principle of natural justice is not applicable,” the high court said on March 12.

The order added that it is not digestible that the respondents woke up after seven years from the date of registration of the First Information Report (FIR), and found that the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners is serious in nature and may have a direct impact on the agricultural biosecurity of the country.

Justice Krishna Rao was dealing with a plea filed by Innocative Pest and Property Management Science and others. (Image enhanced using AI)

Background

• The petitioner, Innovative Pest and Property Management Science, has operated a pest management and fumigation business since 2005.
• On January 14, 2025, the plant quarantine division issued an order banning the firm from conducting Methyl Bromide (MBr) and Aluminum Phosphide (ALP) fumigation treatments.
• The ban was rooted in a 2018 CBI investigation involving allegations of criminal conspiracy, corruption, and the fabrication of Phytosanitary Certificates.
• Pratik Dhar, senior advocate representing the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order was issued by respondent no. 4 without any show-cause notice or an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
• Dhar submitted that as per Clause 2.5 of the National Security for Phytosanitary Measures (NSPM)-12, blacklisting is permissible only in the event of suspension thrice or more within the last five years, but the petitioners were never suspended.
• He further submitted that the respondents have issued the impugned order based on the CBI’s recommendation, as a criminal case is pending against the petitioners, but the authorities failed to appreciate that unless the charges are not proved, it cannot be said that the petitioners are guilty of the alleged offences.

State’s stand

• Representing the state, advocate Anjan Sengupta submitted that the CBI has registered a case involving offences related to the forgery of Phytosanitary Certificate of a foreign country, complicity in corruption, and shielding other similar entity importers who were otherwise liable for penalty.
• He further submitted that during the CBI probe, it was found that the petitioners had committed severe offences, which necessitated prompt action against the petitioners to restrain them from performing the fumigation operation immediately.

‘No show-cause notice, no opportunity of hearing’

• The case initiated by the CBI is pending for adjudication.
• Without adjudication of the criminal trial against the petitioners by the competent court, it cannot be presumed that the petitioners have committed the alleged offence.
• In the case of Prabha Surana, the division bench of this court held that there is a presumption of innocence of an accused unless proved guilty after a proper trial.
• No show-cause notice was issued, and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before the issuance of the impugned order.
• From the date of FIR till the issuance of the impugned order, the petitioners were carrying out Methyl Bromide and Aluminum Phosphide fumigation treatment as per the certificate issued by the state.
• The CBI initiated a case on January 12, 2018, and arrested one of the petitioners on December 23, 2021, and released on bail on 3rd January, 2022.
• The impugned order was passed on January 14, 2025, i.e., after the period of seven years.