Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 2850 2018 SLD 2850 2018 PLJ 868
Lahore High Court
F.A.O. No. 130 of 2016, heard on 05.10.2017.
MUJAHID MUSTAQEEM AHMED, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Malik Mulazim Hussain Jamshed, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Ch. Muhammad Siddiq, Advocate

MUHAMMAD AMIN

VS

MUHAMMAD SARWAR

Law: Punjab Consumer Protection Act, (II of 2005)

Section: 19,28,33

Law: Seed Act, 1976

Section: 22-B,22-C,22-E,22-D,23

Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005-- ----Ss. 19, 28 & 33--Seed Act, 1976, Ss. 22-B, 22-C, 22-E, 22-D & 23--Purchasing of hybird seed substandard quantity--Issuance of legal notice--Complaint before district consumer Court--Partly allowed--Suffering of Fiscal loss and mental agony--Question of--Whether purchased seed was hybird or substandard--Direction to--Respondent was under legal obligation to get his crop inspected from Obriculturist, Agriculture Officer or any expert of Research Center to obtain expert report/lab report of plants to corroborate his version--Laboratory tests and analysis of such experts are quite helpfulto determine controversial issue, involved in such like cases--It is manifest that a detailed and effective procedure has been prescribed for ensuring that misbranded seed by unauthorized dealers/shopkeepers are not supplied to peasants/farmers/ cultivators--But it is ground reality that Seed Inspectors appointed under Section 19 of Seed Act of 1976 are not vigilantly performing their duties and playing their effective role to stop illegal and unauthorized business of seed--Resultantly business of supply of misbranded seed by unauthorized persons is rampant, adversely affecting business of agriculturists/farmers, who are already facing financial crises and hardships--Whereas agriculture is backbone of our economy--Federal Government should ensure that provisions of Seed Act, 1976 are enforced and complied with in letter and spirit--Copy of be sent to Sectretary, Government of, of Pakistan, Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Co-operatives, Islamabad to ensure compliance--Petition partly allowed. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MUJAHID MUSTAQEEM AHMED, JUSTICE---.--- By filing instant appeal in terms of Section 33 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (The Act), the appellant has assailed the legality of the order dated 18.11.2016, passed by learned District Consumer Court, Multan (Consumer Court), mainly on the grounds of against facts and law, based on misreading and non-reading of evidence. 2. The pithy facts giving rise to this appeal and necessary for its fair adjudication are that respondent is cultivator by profession,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492