Common Judgment:

In this batch of three writ petitions, the validity of the notification dated 25-07-2007, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st respondent herein, in exercise of powers under Section 27 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’); is challenged.

The petitioners are the manufacturers, or distributors, as the case may be, of different varieties of insecticides. Through the impugned notification, the 1st respondent prohibited the supply, distribution, sale, and use of insecticides, known as ‘Synthetic Pyrethroids’, for a period of 60 days, in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The notification was published in the A.P. Gazette.

The petitioners contend that the Synthetic Pyrethroids are used, mostly for protection of commercial crops, such as cotton, chilly, vegetables, and for the past several years, the farmers were successful in controlling various plant diseases by using the said insecticides. It is stated that similar notifications were issued during the past two years also, but no further action, as contemplated under Section 27 of the Act, was undertaken, and it is complained that the present notification is issued by misusing the power under the relevant provision.

On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the vast extent of area in the State of Andhra Pradesh is brought under cultivation of cotton, and that in the recent past, the farmers resorted to Bt. Variety of Cotton. The respondents state that the scientific study by Scientists and Agronomists revealed that use of Synthetic Pyrethroids on Bt. Cotton is not advisable up to the second fortnight of September of the year. Reference is made to a note, submitted by the Principal Scientist (Cotton), of a Government Research Farm, at Guntur, which is to the effect that the use of Synthetic Pyrethroids during that period would become counter-productive, and the prohibition would prevent upsurge in pink bollworm activity.

Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the selective prohibition of Synthetic Pyrethroids for a limited period, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, cannot be supported either in law, or on facts. He contends that the power under Section 27 of the Act can be exercised, only where the use of insecticides is found to have resulted danger to human beings and animals, and such a reason was not even stated in the impugned notification. He submits that even if the report relied upon by the respondents is taken as the basis, it does not fit into the scheme of the Act.

Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture, on the other hand, submits that vast extent of land is brought under cultivation of cotton crop, and more than 50% of it, is under Bt. variety.

He contends that indiscriminate use of Synthetic Pyrethroids has not only increased the cost of cultivation, but also has resulted in drastic decrease in yield, leading to suicide of large number of farmers. Learned counsel submits that the prohibition was imposed on the basis of a scientific data, and that no exception can be taken to the impugned notification.

The manufacture and sale of insecticides is governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. Apart from prescribing the procedure for grant of licences and renewal thereof, and the standards to be maintained, the Act empowers the Central Government to prohibit the use of insecticides, initially for a limited period of 60 days, and thereafter to cancel the licences, depending upon the study undertaken therefore. Section 27 of the Act reads as under:

Sec.27: Prohibition of sale, etc., of insecticides for reasons of public safety:-

(1) If, on receipt of a report under Section 26 or otherwise, the Central Government or the State Government is of opinion, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the use of any insecticide specified in sub-clause (iii) of clause (e) of Section 3 or any specific batch thereof is likely to involve su