Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Gaurang Kanth, J.
Dhanuka Agritech Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.10776 Of 2021 and C.M. Nos. 33250 Of 2021 (interim relief), 33252 Of 2021 (direction) & 12322 Of 2022 (interim relief)
Decided On : 24-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Insecticides Act, 1968 - Section 9(3), 5, 10 and 11 - Registration for import - Registration certificate - Aggrieved by impugned order, approached this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India for setting aside impugned decision and impugned order - Held, Article 226 of Constitution cannot become a means to chase down a business rival by pin-pointing procedural deficiency in decision making process - This extra-ordinary power can only be invoked when there appears a glaring error and arbitrariness in decision making process of body - appellant has not been denied or deprived of a legal right - He has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest - In fact, impugned order does not operate as a decision against him, much less does it wrongfully affect his title to something - He has not been subjected to a legal wrong - He has suffered no legal grievance - He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on - Therefore he is not a “person aggrieved” and has no locus standi to challenge grant of no-objection certificate - Court holds that RC has well-satisfied itself with regard to bio-efficacy data and other relevant documents provided by Respondent no. 4 to support its case for registration under Act - Court finds no infirmity or perversity in impugned order - Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
[Gaurang Kanth, J.]
1. Present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing order dated 10.09.2021 (“Impugned Order”) passed by Respondent No. 2/Appellate Authority, rejecting appeal-cum-Revision Petition No. 12 of 2021 under the Insecticides Act, 1968 (“the Act”). The Petitioner had preferred the aforesaid appeal against the decision (“impugned decision”) of the Registration Committee (“RC”) taken at the 430th meeting held on 23.07.2021, as modified by Agenda item 1.0 of its 431st meeting held on 27.08.2021. Vide this impugned decision, registration certificate was granted to Respondent no.4 under Section 9(3) of the Act for import of Halosulfuron methyl technical 98% min. and for indigenous manufacture of formulation Halosulfuron methyl 75% WG.
FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF PRESENT MATTER
2. The Petitioner is a registered company, being granted registration under Section 9(3) of the Act for import of Halosulfuron methyl 75% WG formulation from M/s. Nissan Chemical Industries Ltd., Kowa-Hitotsubashi Building, 7-1, 3-Chome, Kanda-Nishiki-Cho, Chiyoda- Ku, Tokyo 101-0054, Japan. Registration Certificate dated 26.12.2014 has been issued to the Petitioner, and thereafter the Petitioner has been involved in selling the aforesaid formulation under the trade name “Sempra”.
3. Another player in the market is Respondent no.4, who was granted Research, Test and Trial Permit (“RTT Permit”) in 2011 to import sample of Halosulfuron methyl Technical 98% w/w min. from Fertiago, Singapore. It was granted for the purpose of generating data to be submitted in the future along with any applications for registration. In the year 2016, Respondent No.4 filed its application for the purpose of obtaining registration for import of aforesaid chemical. However, a different source of import i.e. Jiangsu, China was cited by Respondent no.4, even though previously Respondent No.4 had obtained the RTT Permit by mentioning Singapore as the source of import.
4. Application filed by Respondent No. 4 was considered by the RC under provision of Section 5 of the Act for scrutinizing the application. Brief history/minutes of various RC meetings scheduled for the same is as follows:
| 429th meeting as held on 24.06.2021, 28.06.2021 and 30.06.2021 | “Agenda item no. 6.1. - Consideration of an application of M/s Crystal Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd., for grant of registration for indigenous manufacture of Halosulfuron methyl 75% WG under section 9(3) FIM vs FI. |
| RC deliberated the agenda and decided that the applicant may be asked for presentation in the next RC meeting to explain the difference in source of RTT permit and source of import of technical mentioned in Form-I” | |
| 430th Meeting as held on 23.07.2021 | “Agenda item 2.1 ….. |
| RC deliberated the agenda and after consideration of point number 5 of 369th RC and also point number 6 and 7, found that this case qualifies for registration u/s 9(3). Accordingly granted for registration for indigenous manufacture of Halosulfuron methyl 75% WG for control of Cyperus rotundus on Sugarcane; Cyperus rotundus. Cyperus iria on Maize and Cyperus rotundus, Cyperus iria on Bottle Gourd in the category FIM vs FI and for technical import of Halosulfuron methyl technical 98% w/w min. manufactured by M/s Jiangsu Agrochem Laboratory Co. Ltd., Minjiang Road, Hi-tech Zone of Changzhou, Jingsu, China through supplier M/s Hebei Bestar commerce and Trade Co. Ltd., No. 6-3-203, No. 66, Dianda Street Xinhua District Shijiazhuang, China with validity 11.10.2023.” | |
| 431st meeting held on 27.08.2021 | “RC confirm the minutes of 430th RC meeting with some modification/corrections:- |
| 1. Agenda item No. 2.1 :- Last para should be inserted as “An affidavit on NJSP should be submitted |
SupremeToday
The main legal principle established is that under the Insecticides Act, a change in the source of import for a registered molecule requires the application to be made under Section 9(3) and not Sect....
The absence of fraudulent intent and the availability of alternative remedies under the Insecticides Act preclude criminal liability under IPC Section 420.
The court ruled that the limitation period for filing a complaint under the Insecticides Act begins from the date the Government Analyst's report is received, not from the sample collection date.
Interim order deciding merits without counter-affidavit is appealable judgment under Letters Patent; Sections 9(3) and 9(3B) of Insecticides Act apply distinctly.
Delay in prosecution unjustly denies manufacturers the right to evidence, leading to quashing of complaints against directors lacking direct involvement in misbranding offenses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the commencement of the period of limitation for filing a complaint under the Insecticides Act, 1968, is determined from the date of receipt o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
