M/S Sai Fertilizers Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India | Delhi High Court 2026

Delhi High Court, M/S Sai Fertilizers, Union of India, Nutrient Based Subsidy, NBS Scheme, Fertiliser Control Order 1985, FCO, Essential Commodities Act, Subsidy Withholding, Natural Justice, Show Cause Notice, Department of Fertilizers, NPK 19:19:19.

27 Feb, 2026
Listen in 00:58 mins | Read in 21:00 mins

M/S Sai Fertilizers Private Limited Versus Union Of India

Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024

Link copied!

Case Background

As per case facts, an MSME fertilizer manufacturer was removed from a subsidy scheme following an inspection and show cause notice, leading to several Writ Petitions challenging procedural irregularities and ...

Bench

Applied Acts & Sections

Article 226 The Constitution of India 1950 – Act name not found

Hello! How can I help you? 😊

Disclaimer: We do not store your data.

Document Text Version

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 1 of 30

$~J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment pronounced on: 27.02.2026

M/S SAI FERTILIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED ......Petitioner

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 , CM APPLs.37030/2024, & 55432/2025

Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan (Sr. Advocate )

along with Mr. Sahil Monga,

Mr. Shashank Sharma, Mr. Shrudhar Kale, Advocate s.

versus

UNION OF INDIA ......Respondent

Through: Ms. Gauri Goburdhun (SPC) for UOI.

M/S SAI FERTILIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED ......Petitioner

W.P.(C) 11099/2024, CM APPLs.45878/2024 & 68374/2024

Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan (Sr. Advocate )

along with Mr. Sahil Monga,

Mr. Shashank Sharma, Mr. Shrudhar Kale, Advocate s.

versus

UNION OF INDIA ......Respondent

Through: Ms. Gauri Goburdhun (SPC) for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

JUDGMENT

1. The present petitions have a chequered history inasmuch as a total of

six writ petitions (including the present petitions) have been filed in respect of

the same cause of action. The factual background is set out briefly hereunder.

2. The petitioner is a MSME Undertaking, manufacturing Single Super

Phosphate (SSP) Fertilizer in West Bengal, India. The petitioner acquired the

requisite license for the sale of the said fertilizer under the Fertilizer Control

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 2 of 30

Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FCO’). By virtue of an Office

Memorandum dated 10.09.2007, the petitioner was inducted into a

Concession Scheme dated 01.10.1992, which was subsequently substituted

by the Nutrient Based Subsidy Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘NBS

Scheme’).

3. As a manufacturer, the petitioner sells its products in the open market at

the rates prescribed by the Government of India and receive subsidy under the

NBS Scheme.

4. The petitioner’s premises were inspected on 20.12.2023 and

21.12.2023, whereupon an inspection report came to be prepared. Based on

this report, a show cause notice dated 03.01.2024 came to be issued.

However, a copy of the inspection report was not shared with the petitioner.

Consequently, the petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.(C) 1586/2024

before this Court. However, even before the said writ petition could be taken

up, a copy of the inspection report was shared with the petitioner rendering

the said writ petition infructuous.

5. The petitioner filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) 2898/ 2024

before this Court being aggrieved by the fact that prior to expiry of the time

afforded to the petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice, an order

came to be passed by the Department of Fertilizers (‘ hereinafter referred as

‘the DoF’) on 23.02.2024 removing the petitioner from the NBS Scheme. The

aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 28.02.2024. The

same reads as under:-

“1. The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the Order dated

23.02.2024 passed by the Respondents by which the Petitioner’s name has

been removed from the Nutrient Based Subsidy Policy.

2. It is stated by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 3 of 30

aforesaid Order dated 23.02.2024 has been passed subsequent to issuance

of a Show Cause Notice dated 03.01.2024 which is the subject matter of

challenge in the W.P.(C) 1586/2024. It is the contention of the learned

Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the Show Cause Notice dated

03.01.2024 gave 15 days’ time to the Petitioner to file a response to the

Show Cause Notice. He states that the Show Cause Notice dated

03.01.2024 was received by the Petitioner without a copy of the report

which was finally supplied to the Petitioner on 09.01.2024. He states that

without the period of filing the response to the Show Cause Notice coming

to an end, the Termination Order has been passed by the Respondents.

3. Learned CGSC appearing for the Respondents, on instructions from the

Department, states that the Termination Order shall be kept in abeyance

till 03.03.2024 and the Petitioner will be given an opportunity to file a

response to the Show Cause Notice dated 03.01.2024.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the

Petitioner should be given at least 10 days’ time to file a response to the

Show Cause Notice.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner is

permitted to file a response to the Show Cause Notice dated 03.01.2024 by

06.03.2024. The Respondents are directed to pass Orders within a week

thereafter.

6. It is for the Respondents to consider as to whether the Petitioner can be

given an opportunity of oral hearing in accordance with the Regulations

or not, if the Regulations otherwise permit. It is expected that the

Respondents will pass a reasoned Order.

7. In case the Order passed by the Respondents goes against the

Petitioner, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to take recourse to all such

remedies, as may be available, in accordance with law.

8. In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of, along with

pending application(s), if any. It is made clear that this Court has not

made any observations on the merits of the case.”

6. As is evident from a perusal of the above order, the respondents

themselves stated, on instructions, that the termination order shall be kept in

abeyance, pending issuance of a reasoned order upon consideration of the

petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice.

7. Pursuant thereto, an order dated 13.03.2024 came to be issued by the

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 4 of 30

DoF removing the petitioner from the NBS Scheme. The same, inter-alia,

records as under:

“WHEREAS from the records submitted by the inspection team and

photographs, the explanation submitted by the manufacturing unit· M/s Sai

Fertilizers Pvt Ltd to the Show Cause Notice is not satisfactory.

WHEREAS, M/s Sai Fertilizers Pvt Ltd vide their letter dated

06.03.2024 requested for a personal hearing before the Competent

Authority. However, after carefully considering all the facts contained in

their response to the Show Cause Notice for which an ample of opportunity

was already given to them in the interest of Natural Justice and also in

compliance of directions of Hon'ble High Court and also considering other

facts and circumstances involved therein, the undersigned has arrived to a

well considered conclusion that the personal hearing shall serve no

additional purpose, as the petitioner has· already submitted his version of

the facts and the matter may be decided on basis of the facts available on

records which shall meet the ends of justice. Even, the Hon'ble High Court

has left the issue of giving and an oral hearing to the petitioner on the

discretion of this department/respondent subject to relevant regulations.

The only point on which the Hon'ble Court laid emphasis was that "It is

expected that the respondents will pass a reasoned Order" The principles of

natural justice has already been applied in this case and the response

submitted by the petitioner is sufficient to decide upon the matter, it was felt

that no personal hearing was necessary in this case.

WHEREAS, M/s Sai Fertilizers Pvt Ltd is a NBS registered Unit and

receives fertilizer Subsidy. NBS registered Units must comply with the

Department of Fertilizers Pvt Ltd guidelines dated 21.09.2022 and

08.06.2023 and other Orders issued time and again by the Department and

FCO 1985 provisions.

Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances involved

in the instant matter including the reply given by the petitioner to the Show

Cause Notice dated 03.01.2024, the following orders are passed:

The Department of Fertilizers hereby removes M/s Sai Fertilizers

Pvt Ltd from Nutrient Based Subsidy Policy with immediate effect.

ORDER

This is further ordered to serve a copy of this Order to M/s Sai

Fertilizers Pvt Ltd, Kharagpur, West Bengal immediately.

Sd/-

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 5 of 30

(Neeraja Adidam)

Special Secretary to the Government of India”

8. The above decision impelled the petitioner to file yet another writ

petition being W.P.(C) 6667/2024 before this Court, whereupon the following

order came to be passed on 10.05.2024:

“1. The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging an Order dated

13.03.2024 passed by the Respondent removing the Petitioner from the

benefit of Nutrient Based Subsidy (NBS) Policy.

2. The facts in brief leading to the writ petition is that proceedings were

initiated against the Petitioner for certain infractions by the Petitioner by

way of a show cause notice which was served on the Petitioner on

03.01.2024.

3. Since there was a dispute regarding the time period within which the

Petitioner had to respond, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing

W.P.(C) 2898/2024 and this Court on 28.02.2024 has passed the following

order:-

“1. The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the

Order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Respondents by which

the Petitioner’s name has been removed from the Nutrient

Based Subsidy Policy.

2. It is stated by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner

that the aforesaid Order dated 23.02.2024 has been passed

subsequent to issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated

03.01.2024 which is the subject matter of challenge in the

W.P.(C) 1586/2024. It is the contention of the learned Senior

Counsel for the Petitioner that the Show Cause Notice dated

03.01.2024 gave 15 days’ time to the Petitioner to file a

response to the Show Cause Notice. He states that the Show

Cause Notice dated 03.01.2024 was received by the Petitioner

without a copy of the report which was finally supplied to the

Petitioner on 09.01.2024. He states that without the period of

filing the response to the Show Cause Notice coming to an

end, the Termination Order has been passed by the

Respondents.

3. Learned CGSC appearing for the Respondents, on

instructions from the Department, states that the Termination

Order shall be kept in abeyance till 03.03.2024 and the

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 6 of 30

Petitioner will be given an opportunity to file a response to the

Show Cause Notice dated 03.01.2024.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states

that the Petitioner should be given at least 10 days’ time to file

a response to the Show Cause Notice.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

Petitioner is permitted to file a response to the Show Cause

Notice dated 03.01.2024 by 06.03.2024. The Respondents are

directed to pass Orders within a week thereafter.

6. It is for the Respondents to consider as to whether the

Petitioner can be given an opportunity of oral hearing in

accordance with the Regulations or not, if the Regulations

otherwise permit. It is expected that the Respondents will pass

a reasoned Order.

7. In case the Order passed by the Respondents goes against

the Petitioner, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to take

recourse to all such remedies, as may be available, in

accordance with law.

8. In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of,

along with pending application(s), if any. It is made clear that

this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the

case.”

4. A perusal of Paragraph 6 of the said order shows that the Respondents

were directed to consider whether an opportunity of hearing in

accordance with the regulations can be given to the Petitioner or not.

5. Though it is stated by Mr. Apoorv Kurup, learned CGSC for the

Respondent, that hearing was not necessary in the facts of the case, yet

this Court had actually passed an order desiring that the Petitioner would

be heard.

6. The Petitioner has not been given an oral hearing to begin with.

However, the facts of the case reveal that after the order has been passed,

the Petitioner received an e- mail dated 27.03.2024 giving the Petitioner

an opportunity of an oral hearing.

7. This Court, at this juncture, is of the opinion that this Court had in fact

expressed its desire that the Petitioner should be given an oral hearing

and no useful purpose would be served if the Petitioner is given an oral

hearing when a decision has already been taken.

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 7 of 30

8. In view of the above and to ensure that the principles of natural justice

are met, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order must be set

aside and the Petitioner must be given an oral hearing by a different set of

officers. Let the oral hearing be given on 20.05.2024.

9. The Petitioner is directed to be present in the office of Respondent for

oral hearing. Let the proceedings be completed as expeditiously as

possible and a decision be taken after giving a reasonable opportunity of

hearing to the Petitioner. In case there is a change in date of hearing, the

Petitioner be informed well in advance.

10. It is made clear that this order has been passed without prejudice to

the rights and contentions of both the parties including the contentions of

the Petitioner that the officer who inspected the premises did not have the

jurisdiction to do so, the documents on the basis of which action has been

taken have been prepared after the inspection was done and any other

contentions which may be raised by the Petitioner.

11. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the

merits of the case. The department is directed to proceed ahead in the

matter in accordance with law.

12. It is also made clear that that so far as undisputed claims of the

Petitioner are concerned, it is always open for the Petitioner to make a

representation and it is for the Respondent to decide as to whether any

amount which is due and payable can be paid to the Petitioner.

13. With these observations, the petition is disposed of along with pending

application(s), if any.”

9. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the “Neutral Officer” for the

hearing scheduled on 29.05.2024 [in terms of the directions contained in the

aforesaid order dated 10.05.2024 passed in W.P.(C) 6667/2024] and

presented oral arguments. At the same time, the petitioner also filed a

representation with the DoF on 15.05.2024 and 20.04.2024 for release of

undisputed dues of subsidy payments. Since the above representation/s

remained unaddressed, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C)

8191/2024 before this Court, which came to be disposed of vide order dated

30.05.2024 in the following terms:

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 8 of 30

“1. The Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer: -

“a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,

order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing the

Respondent to release the undisputed subsidy payments due

to the petitioner from the 4

b) Any other relief, order or directions which this Hon'ble

Court considers just and fit in the facts and circumstances of

the case and in the interest of justice.”

Week of January 2024 to 2nd

week of May, 2024 totalling to INR 4,90,62,417 along with

interest.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner states that at this juncture he

would be satisfied with a direction to the Respondents to consider the

representation of the Petitioner within a period of 10 days from today

since the survival of the Petitioner depends upon the refund.

3. The Respondents are directed to consider the representation of the

Petitioner regarding the undisputed amount which is due and payable

within a period of 15 days from today.

4. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the

merits of the case.

5. The petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.

10. Subsequently, by an Office Memorandum dated 07.06.2024,

representation of the petitioner was purportedly disposed of in terms of the

afore-mentioned order dated 30.05.2024 in the following terms:

“F.No.19011/4/2024- SSP

Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers

Department of Fertilizers

ShastriBhawan, New Delhi

Dated 7

June 2024.

Subject: Hon’ble High Court of Delhi Order dated 30.05.2024 in CM

APPL.33591/2024 (Exemption) W.P.(C) 8191/2024.

Office Memorandum

The undersigned is directed to forward herewith a copy of Judgment

dated 30.5.2024 given by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C)

8191/2024 and to inform hereby that M/s Sai Fertilizers Pvt Ltd was

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 9 of 30

removed from NBS vide this Department’s Order dated 13.03.2024.

2. In this regard, the cut off date for payment of claims to M/s Sai

Fertilizers Pvt Ltd under the NBS scheme for an undisputed period may be

considered till 13.03.2024, i.e the date on which it was removed from NBS

scheme. The further period (post removal date) may be considered a

disputed period for settlement of claims subject to outcome of the personal

hearing before the neutral officer.

3. FS division is therefore requested to take necessary action in this

regard and consider the representation of M/s Sai Fertilizers Pvt Ltd

within 15 days from the Order dated 30.05.2024 under intimation to SSP

division.

Encl: As above.

(Dalbir Singh)

AC (Movt.) & SSP

Ph- 23385119

To,

The Director,

FS Division,

DoF.

Copy to: M/s Sai Fertilizers Pvt Ltd, Kharagpur, West Bengal.”

11. The abovementioned Office Memorandum has been assailed by the

petitioner in W.P.(C) 9060/2024. It is contended therein that the DoF has

made an arbitrary bifurcation by treating dues prior to 13.03.2024 as

‘undisputed’ and dues post 13.03.2024 as ‘ disputed’ . It is urged that the same

overlooks the scope and import of the order dated 10.05.2024 passed in

W.P.(C) 6667/2024, whi ch set aside the order of the DoF dated 13.03.2024.

12. On 24.07.2024, the petitioner was communicated with an “Oral

Hearing Report” along with a covering letter dated 24.07.2024. The same

reads as under:

“F.No.19011/ 4/2024-SSP

Government of India

Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers

Department of Fertilizers

Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi

Dated 24

July, 2024.

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 10 of 30

Shri Nikhil Modi

Director,

M/s Sai Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd.

Kolkata, West Bengal

Subject: Forwarding of Report of Oral Hearing granted by Neutral officer

to M/s Sai Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. on its removal from NBS Policy.

As per Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Order dated 10.5.2024 in Writ

Petition No.W.P.(C) 6667/2024 & CM Appl. 27721/2024 between M/s Sai

Fertilizers Limited Vs UOI, Ms Aneeta Meshram, Additional Secretary

was nominated as Neutral Officer to provide personal/oral hearing to M/ s

Sai Fertilizers Limited. Personal hearing held on 29.5.2024.

2. Neutral Officer vide findings of the Oral Hearing Report has upheld

DoF's order dated 13.3.2024 stating that M/ s Sai Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd,

Manufacturer of SSP has been rightly removed from the NBS Policy.

3. A copy of Oral Hearing Report submitted by Neutral Officer is being

forwarded for information.

(Dalbir Singh)

AC (Movt.) & SSP

Ph-23385119.”

13. The aforesaid communication along with the accompanying “Oral

Hearing Report” has been assailed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) 11099/2024.

The operative portion of the “Oral Hearing Report” is as under:

1.The written statement of the petitioner and the counter reply of SSP

Division, DoF along with various related guidelines and documents were

examined in detail.

“ANALYSIS

2. The petitioner has raised his points in two parts: preliminary objection

on the jurisdiction and on the fabrication of the inspection report and

second charge wise reply to the show cause notice.

A. Preliminary Objection

3.The main point of Sai Fertilizers is regarding the validity of the

Guidelines, validity of the inspection, validity to remove from NBS,

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 11 of 30

validity of the charges covered by FCO.

4.As clarified by the SSP division, State government was informed about

the inspection and was requested to take legal and punitive action under

FCO 1985, EC Act and relevant IPC sections. The details of team

members were clearly mentioned in the DO letter of Additional Secretary,

DoF addressed to CS, Govt. of West Bengal dated 18 December 2023.

Further, a DO dated 18 Deecmeber 2023 was sent to Director Agriculture

also for necessary action under FCO during the inspections. The Officer

from the Agriculture Department of the State Government was present

during the inspection and has issued stop sale notice also with

endorsement to SSP flying squad, DoF. Further, order dated 13 March

2024 has also been forwarded to Chief Secretary for further necessary

action. All correspondence with the State Government of West Bengal is

annexed. (Annexure 4). The inspection was done by the team authorized

by the Department of Fertilizers; hence there is no question on the

jurisdiction of the team to do the inspection.

4. It is evident that the petitioner is wrongly interpreting the law and the

guidelines and is mixing up the nature of inspections carried out under

FCO than with the nature of inspections carried out by the Department of

Fertilizer.

5.The petitioner has questioned the guidelines and stated that DoF

guidelines dated 21.09.2022 are perverse to the statute and moreover

there is no procedure prescribed for removing the manufacturer from

NBS. The petitioner company was inducted into Nutrient Based subsidy

policy as per the guidelines of the Department. The registration of a

company as a manufacturer/dealer/distributer of Fertilizer is carried out

under FCO. Only those FCO registered units can apply for induction into

NBS as per the Department guidelines. Thus petitioner company are

required to comply with all provisions of FCO-1985 and DoF guidelines

dated 21.09.2022 and other guidelines applicable to the industry as issued

by the Department of Fertilizers time to time. FCO-1985 is an umbrella

law which is to be complied by the units along with SSP guidelines.

Provisions of FCO - 1985 are inherent part of DoF guidelines. FCO

compliance is precondition to claim subsidy under the guidelines. Any

violation of FCO-1985 or DoF guidelines, the Department of Fertilizers

reserves the right to remove the petitioner from Nutrient Based subsidy

policy as per guidelines. It is to be mentioned that no action has been

taken by DoF under FCO against the petitioner. SSP division has clarified

the State government was informed about the inspection and was

requested to take legal and punitive action under FCO 1985, EC Act and

relevant IPC sections. The Officer from the Agriculture Department of the

State Government was present during the inspection and has issued stop

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 12 of 30

sale notice also with endorsement to SSP flying squad, DoF. Further,

order dated 13 March 2024 has also been forwarded to Chief Secretary

for further necessary action. The petitioner is only removed from NBS and

not eligible to receive subsidy from the Government of India and claim

bills by entering in iFMS. The petitioner is saying they are not bound to

follow such guidelines. On the one hand, the petitioner is inducted into

NBS by way of guidelines and on the other hand the petitioner is quoting

they are not obliged to follow the guidelines.

6.Government of India provides subsidy the fertilizers

manufacturers/importers of fertilizers to ensure the availability of quality

fertilizers to the farmers at affordable rate to attain the overall objective

of food security of the country. The inspections of DoF are carried out on

the basis of executive order issued by DoF with the approval of Competent

Authority. DoF has to monitor that no irregularities are in the functioning

of unit as these units receive huge fertilizer subsidies. SSP is a

decontrolled fertilizer and Government of India provides subsidy under

Nutrient Based Subsidy (NBS) scheme to the SSP manufacturers with the

objective that SSP manufacturers will supply urea to the farmers at an

affordable price. Further, as specified under Government of India

(Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, management tent of subsidy for

controlled as well as decontrolled fertilizers is one of the main works

allocated to the Department of Fertilizers (DoF). In this regard, it has

been observed that The Fertilizers (Control) Order 1985 (FCO-1985)

regulates the sale, the price and the quality of fertilizers in the Country.

FCO-1985 contains specifications of fertilizers, procedures for

authorization or registration of dealers/retailers/manufacturers,

methodology for sampling and quality testing, fixation of MRP etc.

However, FCO does not envisage the provision for subsidy payments for

any kind of fertilizer. Various different grades of P&K fertilizers are

included in FCO-1985. Companies may manufacture any grade of P&K

fertilizers in compliance of provisions of FCO- 1985 and any other

applicable rules regulations. However, subsidy is not admissible for all

kind of fertilizers included under the FCO-1985.

7.Eligibility for subsidy payment is decided as per provisions

notified/issued by the Department of Fertilizers (DoF) from time to time

with the approval of the Competent Authorit y. Further, as stated above,

DoF is empowered under Government of India (Allocation of Business)

Rules, 1961 to issue such guidelines for the management of the subsidy

payment.

8. Accordingly, DoF has issued guidelines from time to time with the

approval of Competent Authority to regulate the subsidy payments. The

guidelines dated 21.09.2022 by which all the existing guidelines were

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 13 of 30

consolidated and rationalized and in supersession of all earlier

guidelines/circulars/OM's related to different aspects of SSP Industry.

The guidelines clearly mention that the manufacturer should be registered

under FCO which inherently implies that all provisions of the FCO are to

be complied by the manufacturer. Guidelines of the subsidy payment and

FCO-1985 cannot be read separate and in contradiction of each other and

it has to read in totality, FCO being the umbrella law. In order to get the

subsidy, it is mandatory for the SSP manufacturing units including the

petitioner company to comply not only with the provisions of FCO-1985

but also with the provisions of the guidelines issued by the DoF.

Therefore, in case of any violations of FCO -1985 or DoF guidelines or

both, Dof reserve the right to stop payment of subsidy to any fertilizer

manufacturing entity.

9. Hence both FCO-1985 and the guidelines are to be mandatorily be

complied with by the SSP manufacturing units in order to avail the subsidy

NBS-regime. Hence the contention of Sai Fertilizers regarding the validity

of the guidelines and the inspections carried out doesn't hold ground and

it has to comply with all the provisions to avail of the subsidy under NBS.

10. Guidelines dated 21.09.2022 for management of subsidy on SSP

fertilizers were in place for more than one year before the inspection was

carried out in December 2023. Further, after issue of any guidelines if any

stakeholder faces any difficulty then it may approach to the Department of

Fertilizers with justification to extend the deadline of implementation of

guideline/change in guideline etc. Petitioner's SSP unit was also

registered for getting the subsidy under the said guidelines. Therefore,

petitioner was very well versed with the provisions of the guidelines before

the inspection. However, the petitioner had neither represented against

any provision of the guidelines nor informed about the balanced quantity

of filler which it has used or any other conditions of the guidelines which it

was not able to meet nor it had sought extension of time to meet the

deadlines fixed under the guidelines for the minimum automation required

for SSP plants after the issues of guidelines. Accordingly, it may be stated

that petitioner has not complied with the guidelines of the DoF.

11.Regarding fabrication of the Inspection report, Sai Fertilizers has

alleged that inspection report has been fabricated and the report which

was handed over to them at the site is very much different from the

inspection report which was the basis of the Show Cause notice. SSP

division has clarified that all the relevant data from the unit was collected

and compiled. Due to paucity of time, the detailed report was prepared by

the SSP squad and submitted after the completion of the visit.

12.One allegation made by the petitioner is that the expenses for

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 14 of 30

boarding/lodging/transport were borne by the company and for which

they have attached the bills. No counter reply has been given by the

Division. SSP Division may examine and seek clarification from the

inspection team members and take appropriate action on the matter.

B. Charges in the Show Cause Notice:

13.Apart from analysis of pre objections, the charge wise analysis is done

below. Since the petitioner has raised the validity of charges with regard

to the FCO and the guidelines, the charges are analysed in the totality of

FCO and guidelines in view of the overall analysis given above with

regard to interplay of FCO and the department guidelines,

14. First set of charges

15.As per para 4.B.III E of the DoF guidelines dated 21.09.2022, no fillers

are allowed to be added in the SSP produced. The guidelines are

applicable to all SSP units registered under Nutrient Based Subsidy (NBS)

Scheme. As per provisions of Nutrient Based Subsidy guidelines, M/s Sai

Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. Has to comply with the provisions given in guidelines

dated 21/9/2022. The mandate of Department of Fertilizers isto release

the subsidy as per provisions stipulated in various guidelines. These

guidelines are effective from the date of issuing/signing. The unit has used

the fillers and it has been accepted in its written statement also If there

was any difficulty with regard to implementation of the clauses related to

fillers, there was no representation from their side. The petitioner had

neither represented against any provision of the guidelines nor informed

about the balanced quantity of filler which it has used. Similarly is the

charge of automation which it was not able to meet nor it had sought

extension of time to meet the deadlines fixed under the guidelines for the

minimum automation required for SSP plants after the issues of

guidelines. As per DoF guidelines dated 21.09.2022, the phase I and

Phase II automation has to be completed within 01 year (Phase I within 6

months and phase II within one year). Accordingly, it may be stated that

petitioner has not complied with the guidelines of the DoF.

are related to non compliance of guidelines like

fillers, booking export grade on IF MS for claiming subsidy, automation,

not booking losses on actual basis and claiming unauthorised subsidy.

16. The company is booking export grade SSP in the i FMS portal along

with subsidized grade SSP to claim unauthorized subsidy. The purpose of

iFMS is for release of subsidy which is done after the sale on PoS, hence it

is not proved that the unit has booked export grade SSP for subsidy. Since

IFMS is only for claiming subsidy and related information related to the

stock of domestic SSP, SSP division may examine the requirement of

capturing the export grade SSP data on IFMS and accordingly make

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 15 of 30

suitable amendment in the IFMS so that it doesn't capture any data related

to export grade SSP. The unit should intimate separately regarding stocks

adjustment for export and not book the same under iFMS along with

subsidized grade SSP.

17. The unit has booked a loss of 1% for all months as per records

submitted by the unit. As per FCO-1985 the moisture content for Single

Super Phosphate Powdered (PSSP) is 12% maximum and for Single Super

Phosphate Granulated (GSSP) is 5% maximum. The difference is 7%

which are the losses. However in some cases the moisture of PSSP ranges

from 9-10%. So losses is around 3- 5%. However as can be seen from the

stock register of the unit, the losses are not booked on daily basis and the

unit has booked a loss of 1% for all the months submitted in the record. No

satisfactory justification has been given by the unit.

18.Second set of charges

19.As per Clause 21A of FCO-1985, every manufacturer shall, in order to

ensure the quality of their product, possess minimum laboratory facility,

as may be specified from time to time by the Controller. From the above,

every manufacturer should possess minimum lab facility ensure checking

of products and material and log book should have been maintained and

signed by lab representative on daily basis. Therefore, the reply submitted

by unit is not acceptable and violative of Clause 21 A of FCO-1985.

20.The petitioner is in clear violation of clause 35 (3) of FCO-1985 by not

maintaining separate record books for export grade SSP and subsidized

grade SSP. It has accepted that the stock information is available on

IFMS. As per section 2 (kk) (III) of FCO-1985 Industrial purposes mean

the use of fertilizer for purposes other than fertilization of soil and

increasing the productivity of crops. As per Clause 35(3) of FCO-1985

which states that "Where a State Government, a manufacturer, an

importer and a pool handling agency holds valid certificates of

registration for sale of fertilizers in, wholesale or retail or both and also

for sale for industrial use, he shall maintain separate books of accounts

for these two or three types of sales made by him. The petitioner stated that

they are only exporting SSP and as such does not come under industrial

use. The petitioner has a wrong understanding of section 2(kk) (III) of

are related to stock management, record related

to stock, quality management and inventory/material management in the

premises. The points raised in their representation and the counter reply

of DoF proves that the all charges except one against the petitioner are

proved and there is violation of various provisions of FCO-1985. The

charge related to batch wise sampling before dispatch of finished goods is

not proved and sampling is being done as proved by the documents

provided by the petitioner .

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 16 of 30

FCO.

21. The petitioner has challenged the mismatch of stock and not proper

segregation and stacking of the material in the premises. The petitioner

has claimed that it not possible to verify the stock physically in less than

six hours. The petitioner has further claimed proper segregation of the

materials and stacking of the stock in the premises and has submitted the

photographs of the stock kept in the premises.

SSP division has replied that there is mismatch is - 1516 MT for Green

SSP, +26.30 MT for SSP (G+Z), -227.60 MT for GSSP (Export grade) and

-505.831 MT for SSP (P&B). The inspection teams count the number of

bags. The number of bags stacked in a row and quantity of fertilizer in the

specific bag is also calculated and on the basis of which total physical

stocks are noted during inspection. The inspection team members are to

take note of physical stocks. The quantity of each bag of material is known

and from the total area, physical quantity of SSP stocks is calculated by

the inspection team. DoF has charged the petitioner that at the time of

inspection there was no proper segregation of raw material and Green

SSP inside the plant premises and no proper segregation of storage of

subsidized SSP and export quality SSP and both kept at same place and

intermixed with each other. The photographs were submitted by the

inspection team to the department. From the photographs of the unit, it is

evidently clear that there is no proper segregation of raw material and

Green SSP as well no proper segregation of subsidized SSP and export

SSP and as per FCO stocks are not kept in proper stacking.

22.As far as mismatch of stock and segregation of stock and stacking is

concerned, statement of both the petitioner and DoF are self-

contradictory. If Sai Fertilizers has kept the stock segregated and in

proper stacking as claimed by them, then it wouldn't have been difficult to

count the stock as per row and area by the inspection team. SSP division,

DoF has on one hand has charged the company that there was no

segregation, no stacking and material was put haphazard, then how was it

possible to count the exact quantum of the material in a limited time.

Looking at the overall picture, it is clear that the material is kept in a

haphazard manner and not complying with the FCO provisions. However

as far mismatch is concerned, SSP division DoF statement is accepted

since fairly good estimate of mismatch can be worked out even if the

numbers may not be exact. Sai Fertilizers cannot claim both that its stock

keeping is proper stacked and segregated and DoF is not able to count the

exact mismatch in the stock. Hence the charges related to stock keeping

also stands proved.

23. As per clause 25(1) of FCO, no person shall, except with the prior

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 17 of 30

permission of the Central Government and subject to such terms and

conditions as may be imposed, by such Government shall use fertilizer for

purposes other than fertilization of soils and increase in productivity of

crops; The purpose of the subsidy is to provide the fertilizers timely to the

farmers at affordable prices. Mismatch in the stocks indicate the

non-compliance of the end objectives of the NBS subsidy policy by the

Unit. Any violation of any provision with regard to the stock management

defeats the very purpose of end objective of NBS subsidy policy with

regard to the availability of adequate fertilizers to the farmers at

affordable prices on time.

FINDINGS:

1. The petitioner in its written submission has pointed out various

provisions of the FCO-1985 and DoF guidelines and has raised objections

on the legal validity of the inspection carried out by DoF. In this regard, it

has been observed that The Fertilizers (Control) Order 1985 (FCO-1985)

regulates the sale, the price and the quality of fertilizers in the Country.

FCO-1985 contains specifications of fertilizers, procedures for

authorization or registration of dealers/retailers/manufacturers,

methodology for sampling and quality testing, fixation of MRP etc.

However, FCO does not envisage the provision for subsidy payments for

any kind of fertilizer. Various different grades of P&K fertilizers are

included in FCO-1985. Companies may manufacture any grade of P&K

fertilizers in compliance of provisions of FCO-1985 and any other

applicable rules regulations. However, subsidy is not admissible for all

kind of fertilizers included under the FCO-1985.

2. Eligibility for subsidy payment is decided as per provisions

notified/issued by the Department of Fertilizers (DoF) from time to time

with the approval Competent Authority. Further, as stated above, DoF is

empowered under Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules,

1961 to issue such guidelines for the management of the subsidy payment.

The guidelines issued by DoF on 21.09.2022 wherein all the existing

guidelines have been consolidated and rationalized in supersession of all

earlier guidelines/circulars/Oms related to different aspects of SSP

Industry is one of the guidelines issued by DoF for management of subsidy

on SSP Fertilizer.

3. The registration of a company as a manufacturer of Fertilizer is carried

out under FCO, Only those FCO registered units can apply for induction

into NBS as per the Department guidelines. Thus petitioner company is

required to comply with all provisions of CO -1985 and DoF guidelines

dated 21.09.2022 and other guidelines applicable to the industry as issued

by the Department of Fertilizers. FCO-1985 is an umbrella law to be

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 18 of 30

complied by the units along with SSP guidelines. The SSP guidelines

inherently includes FCO-1985 provisions it being a precondition to avail

the subsidy under the DoF guidelines. In case of any violation of

FCO-1985 or DoF guidelines, the Department of Fertilizers reserves the

right to remove the petitioner from Nutrient Based subsidy policy as per

guidelines. The petitioner was not tried under FCO by the Department. No

action has been taken by DoF under FCO against the petitioner. As SSP

division has clarified the State government was informed about the

inspection and was requested to take legal and punitive action under FCO

1985, EC Act and relevant IPC sections. Further, order dated 13 March

2024 has also been forwarded to Chief Secretary for further necessary

action. The copy of the order of removal from NBS dated 13 March 2024

has been forwarded to Chief Secretary, West Bengal for further necessary

action. The petitioner is only removed from NBS and not eligible to

receive subsidy from the Government of India and claim bills by entering

in iFMS.

4.In view of the above, in order to get the subsidy, it is mandatory for the

SSP manufacturing units including the petitioner company to comply with

the guidelines issued by the DoF of which various FCO provisions are

inherent part. Therefore, in case of any violations of FCO-1985 or DoF

guidelines, DoF reserve the right to stop payment of subsidy to any

fertilizer manufacturing entity.

5.Inspection team of Dof has found various irregularities in the units

related to SSP subsidy guidelines and FCO violations mainly related to

stock keeping and management. Further, replies submitted by the

petitioners during the hearing and also submitted in written have not been

satisfactory and justifiable and it has violated the guidelines dated

21.09.2022 issued by the DoF. Compliance of DoF guidelines is necessary

to claim the government subsidy.

6. The petitioner has questioned the various clauses of FPO being violated

not been specifically mentioned in the show cause notice however in the

counter reply DoF has clearly mentioned the FPOs clauses. Though, it

does not have any impact on the merit of the case, it is advised that the

division may consider putting clauses in the notice for better clarity. It is

to be mentioned that Government pays huge subsidy to the SSP

manufacturers with the interest of farmers and some technical point of not

mentioning the clauses in the notice cannot be taken advantage of in lieu

of the substantive charges involved. Government of India provides subsidy

on the fertilizers to manufacturers/importers of fertilizers to ensure the

availability of quality fertilizers to the farmers at affordable rate to attain

the overall objective of food security of the country.

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 19 of 30

7.In view of the above, M/s Sai fertilizers Pvt Ltd, manufacturer of SSP has

been rightly removed from the NBS policy. The petitioner is not eligible to

receive subsidy from the Government of India and claim bills by entering

in IFMS. As far as action under FCO violations is concerned, the matter

has already been referred to the State Government to take further

appropriate action Additionally, the petitioner may again apply for

availing the subsidy under NBS policy subject to fulfillment of all the

conditions stipulated under the guidelines of the DoF and it shall be

considered by the concerned division on merit.

Accordingly, the analysis and findings in the matter on the basis of the

oral hearing given to the petitioner M/s Sai Fertilizers in compliance of

the Hon High Court order dated 10 May 2024 is hereby forwarded for

necessary action.”

14. Vide order dated 12.08.2024 passed in W.P.(C) 11099/2024, this Court,

inter-alia, ordered as under:

“8. Paragraph 7 of the impugned decision, suggests that the Respondent

are willing to consider Petitioner’s re-introduction into the NBS Scheme

in case they were to apply afresh. Relying on this observation, Mr. Singh proposes that the Respondents should conduct a new inspection of the Petitioner’s premises to ascertain compliance with the Scheme. Building on this, he urges the Court to consider establishing an interim arrangement for the Petitioner, pending a final decision regarding their reinstatement into the NBS Scheme. This approach would ensure that the Petitioner’s operations can continue without disruption, while the compliance verification process is underway.

9. In the opinion of the Court, the suggestion given by Mr. Balbir Singh, has merit since the Respondent is willing to consider the Petitioner for reintroduction to the said Scheme, in case the Petitioner were to make a fresh application for the same and subject to fulfilment of all

pre-requisites. However, considering the alleged violations, it is prudent

for the Respondents to undertake a comprehensive re-inspection of the

Petitioner’s premises. This re-inspection will ensure that the Petitioner

now complies fully with the NBS scheme’s requirements and determine

their current eligibility.

10. Let inspection be carried out by the Respondent within a period of two weeks from today and the report be placed on record for the perusal of the Court. It is made clear that the Petitioner shall bear the entire cost related

to the inspection. The inspecting team may, if deemed necessary, also videograph the inspection and take photographs for which the expenses shall also be borne by the Petitioner.

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 20 of 30

11. These directions are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of

the Respondent. The Court has not made any comment on the merits of the

case. The possibility of the Petitioner being reinstated into the NBS

Scheme following the re-inspection as directed, or whether such

reinstatement necessitates a new application, will be deliberated upon

during the subsequent hearing.”

15. Thereafter, the respondent carried out a fresh inspection on 18.08.2024

at the petitioner’s site through a team comprising of the official/ s of Project

and Development India Ltd. (PDIL), the DoF and the Fertilizer Association of

India (FAI). After inspecting the site, it was concluded that the petitioner was

compliant with the NBS Scheme and therefore, eligible to be re-introduced

into the same. Thereafter, taking note of the same, vide order dated

05.09.2024 passed in these proceedings, this Court ordered as under:

“4. In view of the urgency expressed by the counsel for Petitioner, the writ

petition is called on board today itself.

5. On 12

6. In terms of the above directions, the investigation has been carried out

and inspection report, along with affidavit of compliance, has been filed

by Respondent No. 1. The relevant portion of the inspection report is

reproduced hereunder:

August, 2024, the Court had directed the Respondent to

re-inspect the Petitioner’s premises and report on the Petitioner’s

compliance with the requirements of the Nutrient Based Subsidy (NBS)

Scheme, and accordingly determine their eligibility under the NBS

Scheme.

“10. Joint team of PDIL, DOF and FAI, approved by Department of

Fertilizer, visited Sai Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. on 18 .8.2024.

The observation of the team is as under:-

As per the standard practice and DoF Guidelines dated 21/09/2022 and

provisions made in FCO. The joint team has technically inspected the

entire unit for product ion of PSSP and GSSP 400 TPD that is 132000

MT per Annum. The finding of joint team is given below.

a.) Unit has adequate equipment’s / Machineries/other facilities to

meet the requirement of 400 TPD of PSSP and GSSP as per the

guidelines.

b.) Unit has already complied the various technical observations like:

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 21 of 30

7. In light of the above, since the Petitioner is now compliant with the NBS

Scheme, the Petitioners are eligible to be re- introduced into the NBS

Scheme. Although, counsel for the Respondent had submitted that the

Petitioner would be required to re-apply, however, counsel for Petitioner

submits that there is no such requirement and the Petitioner can simply be

re-introduced into the NBS Scheme.

8. The legal effect of the Petitioner being re-introduced to the NBS Scheme

will be adjudicated at the later point of time. However, as of now, the

Respondent is directed to re-introduce the Petitioner into the NBS Scheme.

Consequently, the benefits under the NBS Scheme be extended to the

Petitioner with effect from 9th September, 2024. Let the necessary

notification to that effect be issued expeditiously.”

16. Accordingly, the respondent issued an Office Memorandum dated

10.09.2024 declaring the petitioner to be eligible for subsidy as per the

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 22 of 30

applicable guidelines / orders with effect from 09.09.2024.

17. In the above conspectus, since the petitioner has been re-introduced

into the NBS Scheme with effect from 09.09.2024, the only effective

controversy is the petitioner’s entitlement to subsidy during the period

13.03.2024 to 09.09.2024.

18. In the above conspectus, learned senior counsel for the petitioner made

the following contentions, as recorded in the order dated 05.08.2025 :

“i. It is submitted that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has

been sought to be removed from the Nutrient Based Subsidy Scheme (NBS

Scheme) is disproportionate and contrary to the respondent’s own

guidelines/ directions dated 08.06.2023. It is pointed out that in terms

thereof, in the event of a first violation, the maximum penalty to which the

petitioner could have been subjected was “recovery of subsidy equivalent

to one day’s production capacity of the petitioner’s unit”. The said

communication dated 08.06.2023 reads as under:-

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 23 of 30

ii. Secondly, it is submitted that although the order dated 13.03.2024,

which has been previously passed by the officials of the respondent, was

set aside by this Court on 10.05.2024 by way of the impugned order, the

previous order dated 13.03.2024 has been sought to be reinstated despite

the same having been expressly set aside. It is further submitted that the

concerned hearing report appended to the impugned communication

dated 24.07.2024 does not disclose the names of the officers who granted/

conducted the hearing, nor does it contain any signatures. As such, the

hearing report being unsigned, could not have been acted upon for the

purpose of passing any order against the petitioner, much less could have

been utilised for the purpose of restoring the order dated 13.03.2024

which was set aside by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2024.

iii. Thirdly, it is submitted that the concerned guidelines of the respondent

do not contain any provision for a surprised check. As such, the very basis

for taking action against the petitioner is not based on any extant

guidelines.

iv. It is submitted that whereas the unsigned hearing report seeks to find

fault with the fact that the petitioner has not carried out the necessary

automation, it has been wholly disregarded that the deadline for

automation has been extended by the respondent/ department itself by way

of subsequent orders inter alia order dated 30.04.2025, copy of which has

been handed over during the course of hearing.

v. Lastly, it is submitted that when the surprise inspection was conducted

on 21.12.2023, no sample whatsoever was tested and the outcome of the

inspection is not borne out by any sample report intimated to the

petitioner.”

19. In response, learned counsel for the respondent, while conceding that

the violation pursuant to which the petitioner was removed from the NBS

Scheme was the “first violation” of the petitioner, contended that the action

has been taken against the petitioner by taking recourse to Clause 31 of the

FCO. This was duly recorded in the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by this

Court in the present proceedings.

20. It is further emphasized that the “Oral H earing report” (appended with

the impugned cover letter dated 24.07.2025) records that the petitioner has

committed a series of serious violations which were sufficient to remove the

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 24 of 30

petitioner from the NBS Scheme.

21. Learned counsel for the respondent has also controverted the

submissions on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the order dated

13.03.2024 passed by the DoF has been set aside by this Court on 10.05.2024.

It is contended that this Court vide its order dated 10.05.2024 did not reinstate

the petitioner into the NBS Scheme and therefore, the said order does not

detract from the fact that the petitioner is not entitled to any subsidy with

effect from the date of issuance of the said termination order

(i.e.,13.03.2024).

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

22. On a perusal of the record, this Court finds that the exercise conducted

by the respondent in the aftermath of the order dated 10.05.2024 passed by

this Court in W.P(C) 6667/2024 suffers from considerable procedural and

substantive lacuna. This is on account of the following circumstances: -

22.1. Inexplicably, the “Oral Hearing Report” rendering final decision

on the merits of the case and finding justification in the removal of the petitioner from the NBS Scheme, does not bear any

name/signature/designation of the officer/authority who prepared it. Also, it transpires that the concerned hearing officer, after conclusion of the hearing, obtained certain replies / submissions from the DoF on 06.06.2024

and 11.07.2024. This is duly recorded in the “Oral Hearing Report”.

Evidently, the petitioner was heard on 29.05.2024 and had no inkling about

the further documents / submissions sought from the DoF.

22.2. The covering letter, whereby, the “Oral Hearing Report” was

forwarded to the petitioner purports to “uphold” the DoF’s order dated

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 25 of 30

13.03.2024. The said order dated 13.03.2024 was set aside by this Court

vide order dated 10.05.2024, in the following terms:

“8. In view of the above and to ensure that the principles of natural

justice are met, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order

must be set aside and the Petitioner must be given an oral hearing

by a different set of officers. Let the oral hearing be given on

20.05.2024.”

As such, it is quite incongruous for the impugned communication dated

24.07.2024 and also the “Oral Hearing Report” appended thereto to

“upheld” the order dated 13.03.2024.

22.3. Significantly, the “Oral Hearing Report” records at various places

that the petitioner was neither tried nor any action had been taken against it

under the FCO. The relevant extracts of the “Oral Hearing Report” where

this aspect had been adverted to are reproduced hereunder:

“

The petitioner stated that DoF guidelines dated 21.09.2022 are perverse

to the statute and they are not obliged by any way what so ever to follow

such guidelines. The petitioner company was inducted into Nutrient Based

subsidy policy as per the guidelines of the Department. The registration of

a company as a manufacturer/dealer/distributer of Fertilizer is carried out

under FCO. Only those FCO registered units can apply for induction into

NBS as per the Department guidelines. Thus petitioner company are

required to comply with all provisions ofFCO-1985 and DoF guidelines

dated 21.09.2022 and other guidelines applicable to the industry as issued

by the Department of Fertilizers time and again. FCO- 1985 is an

umbrella law to be complied by the units along with SSP guidelines. The

SSP guidelines are not contradictory to any provisions of FCO-1985. Any

violation of FCO-1985 or Dof guidelines, the Department of Fertilizers

reserves the right to remove the petitioner from Nutrient Based subsidy

policy as per guidelines.

SSP Division, DoF counter-reply:

The petitioner was not tried under section 31 of

FCO. No action has been taken by DoF under FCO against the petitioner.

The petitioner is only removed from NBS and not eligible to receive

subsidy from the Government of India and claim bills by entering in iFMS.

The petitioner is free to run their business as per FCO. The petitioner is

saying they are not bound to follow such guidelines. On the one hand, the

petitioner is inducted into NBS by way of guidelines and on the other hand

W.P.(C) 9060/2024 & W.P.(C) 11099/2024 Page 26 of 30

the petitioner is quoting they are not obliged to follow the guidelines. The

observations of DoF on the violations by the petitioner company as cited

in DoF Order dated 13.03.2024 is again reiterated

xxx xxx xxx

ANALYSIS

……..5. The petitioner has questioned the guidelines and stated that DoF