M/S Suvarna Hybrid Seeds Pvt Ltd v. Union of India

NC:(2026:KHC:23934( WP(No.(12812(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(28 (DAY(OF(APRIL,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(SACHIN(SHANKAR(MAGADUM( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(12812(OF(2026((GM-RES)( ( BETWEEN:(( ( (

1., M/S,SUVARNA,HYBRID,SEEDS,PVT.,LTD.,, A,PRIVATE,LIMITED,COMPANY,,, HAVING,ITS,OFFICE,AT,, THNO.113,,10 ,MAIN,ROAD,,, ATTUR,LAYOUT,,YELAHANKA,NEW,TOWN,, BENGALURU,-,560,064.,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,, MANAGING,DIRECTOR,, SRI.,NARAYAN,V.,PATIL, ,

2., M/S.,ANKITH,AGRO,FARM,SEEDS, HAVING,ITS,OFFICE,, THNO.460,,8 ,CROSS,,, Digitallytisignedtiby NEAR,VASAVI,TEMPLE,,, NAGARAJA0B0M Location:0HIGH MAHALAKSHMI,LAYOUT,,, COURT0OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU,-,560,086.,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,, MANAGING,DIRECTOR,, SRI.,PRASANNA,KUMARA,K,M, ,

3., M/S.,INDU,SEEDS,, HAVING,ITS,OFFICE,AT,, NO.31,,GROUND,FLOOR,,, THSHIVA,NILAYA,,4 ,CROSS,,, MANJUNATHA,LAYOUT,,R,T,NAGAR,,, BENGALURU,-,560,032.,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,MANAGING,DIRECTOR,, SRI.,I,C,PATIL, NC:(2026:KHC:23934( WP(No.(12812(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( , ,

4., M/S.,MRITYUNJAYA,SEEDS,CORPORATION, HAVING,ITS,OFFICE,AT,, MRITYUNJAYA,MAHAL,,SAVADTTI,ROAD,,, DHARWAD,-,580,001.,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,MANAGING,DIRECTOR, SRI.,SIDDHARAM,GANGAPPA,NADAKATTI, ,

5., M/S.,HANUMAN,ASSOCIATES,, HAVING,ITS,OFFICE,AT,, NO.75,,SANGOLLI,RAYANNA,CIRCLE,,, NISARGA,LAYOUT,ROAD,,, MV,EXTENSION,,HOSAKOTE,,, BENGALURU,RURAL,,, BENGALURU,-,562,114., , REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,MANAGING,DIRECTOR,, SRI.,SHARANABASAPPA,TUPPAD, ,

6., M/S.,KARNATAKA,SEEDS,CORPORATION,, HAVING,ITS,OFFICE,AT,NO.109,,, ST TH1 ,MAIN,,7 ,CROSS,,AV,ROAD, CHAMARAJPET,, BENGALURU,-,560,018., REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,, MANAGING,DIRECTOR,, SRI.,ABHISHEK,B,M, ,

7., M/S.,BHALSAR,SEEDS,INDIA,PRIVATE,LIMITED.,, SAHUKAR,COMPLEX,,SURADHENUPURA,, DODDABALLAPURA,YELAHANKA,MAIN,ROAD,, BENGALURU,-,560,064.,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,MANAGING,DIRECTOR,, SRI.,BRAJESH,KISHOR,TRIPATHI., ,

8., M/S.,KARNATAKA,HYBRID,SEEDS,, THNO.,122,,4 ,CROSS,,, HANUMANTHNAGAR,,, BENGALURU,-,560,019.,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,MANAGING,DIRECTOR,, NC:(2026:KHC:23934( WP(No.(12812(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( SRI.,K,S,JAGADEESHA, , …PETITIONERS, (BY,SRI.,D,PRABHAKAR,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( (

1., UNION,OF,INDIA, MINISTRY,OF,AGRICULTURE,AND,CO-OPERATION,, DEPARTMENT,OF,AGRICULTURE,AND,CO-OPERATION, F/212,,SHASTRI,BHAVAN,,, NEW,DELHI,-,110,001.,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,SECRETARY, ,

2., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,, REPRESENTED,BY,THE,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,,, MS,BUILDING,,AMBEDKAR,VEEDHI,,, BENGALURU,-,560,001., ,

3., THE,DIRECTOR,OF,AGRICULTURE,, DEPARTMENT,OF,AGRICULTURE,,, SESHADRI,ROAD,,, BENGALURU,-,560,001., ,

4., THE,DIRECTOR,OF,HORTICULTURE,, DEPARTMENT,OF,HORTICULTURE,,, LALBAGH,PARK,,, BENGALURU,-,560,004., ,

5., THE,DEPUTY,DIRECTOR,OF,AGRICULTURE,, DEPARTMENT,OF,AGRICULTURE,,, AGRICULTURE,COMPLEX,,, BANGALORE,URBAN,,BANASHANKARI,,, BENGALURU,-,560,050., , …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,VINAY,V,,ADVOCATE,CGSC,FOR,R1;, ,,,,,,SRI.,ADITHYA,DIWAKAR,,AGA,FOR,R2,TO,R5), , , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, DIRECT, THE,

RESPONDENTS NOT TO INSIST UPON THE PETITIONERS TO SECURE LICENSE UNDER THE HEAD PRINCIPLE CERTIFICATE OR STATE SEEDS LICENSE UNDER THE UN-NOTIFIED STATUTE CALLED THE SEEDS ACT 2025 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India has secured instructions and submits that the proposed Bill, which is sought to be relied upon by the State authorities, has not yet been enacted into law by the competent legislature and is still at a nascent stage of consideration.

¶2The gist of the grievance ventilated by the petitioners is that, notwithstanding their undisputed possession of a valid licence issued under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are allegedly insisting that the petitioners obtain a fresh licence under

the proposed legislation, which has not yet attained statutory force.

¶3Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, while opposing the petition, fairly submits on instructions that the proposed Bill has not been passed and, therefore, there exists no enforceable mandate requiring the petitioners to obtain any licence thereunder. In view of the said unequivocal stand taken both by the Union of India and the State, any insistence by the field-level authorities to compel compliance under a non-existent statutory regime would be wholly untenable in law.

¶4This Court cannot countenance a situation where executive authorities seek to enforce obligations founded on a proposed legislation which has not ripened into law. Such an action would be ex facie arbitrary and dehors the statutory framework governing the field. Though the learned Additional Government Advocate has

contended that no material is placed on record to substantiate the alleged insistence by the authorities, having regard to the apprehension expressed by the petitioners and the statements now made across the Bar, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a protective direction. Accordingly, respondent Nos.2 to 5 are hereby directed not to insist upon the petitioners to obtain any licence under the proposed Bill, which is yet to be enacted, and to confine their regulatory action strictly in accordance with the extant provisions governing the field, including the licence contemplated under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.

¶5For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass following: ORDER

(i) The writ petition is disposed of.

(ii) Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are directed not to insist upon the petitioners to obtain any

licence under the proposed Bill, which is yet to be enacted and has not attained statutory force.

(iii) It is further directed that the respondents shall regulate the activities of the petitioners strictly in accordance with the existing statutory framework, including the licence granted under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, and shall not take any coercive action on the basis of the proposed legislation.

(iv) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 88