Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Unikil Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
LPA 530 of 2022 and LPA 536 of 2022
Decided On : 09-05-2023
Insecticides Act - Registration of Molecule - Section 9(3), Section 9(4)
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Registration Certificate for 'Imazathapyr molecule' under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The Appellant's claim for registration was rejected as the molecule was already registered under Section 9(3) by another company. The Appellant contended that the rejection was unjust as the molecule was already registered and the application was rightly made under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Appellant's case did not fall under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act as the molecule was not being imported from the same source. The Registration Committee rightly declined the Appellant's claim for registration under Section 9(4).
Issues: The key issue was whether the Appellant's application for registration of the molecule under Section 9(4) was justified when the molecule was already registered under Section 9(3) by another company.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Section 9(3) and Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, emphasizing that a change in the source of import requires the application to be made under Section 9(3) and not Section 9(4). The Court relied on previous judgments and the statutory provisions to support its decision.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Learned Single Judge and holding that the Appellant's case did not qualify for registration under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act.
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. (Oral)
LPA 530/2022
1. Regard being head to similitude in the controversy involved in both the LPAs, they were heard together and a common judgment is being passed. The facts of the LPA 530/2022 are being dealt with as under.
2. The Appellant before this Court has filed this present Appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent being aggrieved by an order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 6092/2013 titled Unikil Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr..
3. The facts of the case reveal that the Writ Petition was preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Appellant herein being aggrieved by an order dated 10.07.2013 and a prayer was made to issue Registration Certificate to the Appellant for "Imazathapyr molecule" under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter to be referred as `Insecticides Act.).
4. The facts of the case further reveal that the Appellant, as stated by him, is a leading manufacturer/formulator of pesticides, insecticides, wedicides and other biocides in the State of Madhya Pradesh having a factory situated at Industrial Estate Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh.
5. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Petitioner preferred an Application under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act for registration of molecule, which was already registered under Section 9(3) of the Insecticides Act, and, the claim of the Appellant was rejected.
6. The facts further reveal that the Petitioner (Appellant herein) in the Writ Petition has stated that there is another Company namely BASF India Ltd. which has registered the molecule in question under Section 9(3) of the Insecticides Act, and, in those circumstances, the molecule was already a registered molecule. The Appellant applied for grant of registration for importing molecule under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act.
The Appellant, thereafter, as stated by him, carried out necessary tests in respect of the molecule and the same was to be imported from China.
7. The facts further reveal that an order was passed on 02.06.2011 informing the Appellant cancellation of the registration application. The Appellant, thereafter, submitted a representation on 20.12.2012, and as nothing was being done, he preferred a Writ Petition before this Court i.e. W.P.(C.) No. 2319/2013 and the Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 12.04.2013 directing the Respondent to decide the representation of the Appellant.
8. The Registration Committee has thereafter decided the representation of the Appellant by an order dated 05.05.2011, and Appellant has again filed a fresh Writ Petition before this Court i.e. W.P.(C.) No. 6092/2013, and the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the said Writ Petition.
9. The Appellant's contention is that he is importing molecule from China, and it is already registered under Section 9(3) of the Insecticides Act, hence the application preferred by the Appellant was rightly preferred under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, and, therefore, the rejection is bad in law.
10. The Respondent before this Court had defended the order passed in the matter, and it was argued before the Learned Single Judge as well as before this Court that Section 9(4) is applicable only when the import is from the same source.
11. The Learned Single Judge placing reliance upon a judgment delivered in the cases of Haryana Pesticides Manufacturers' Association and Ors. v. Central Insecticides Board & Registration Committee and Ors., MANU/PH/0222/2015, and of this Court in Syngenta India Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., MANU/DE/1955/2009 has dismissed the Writ Petition.
12. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the Learned Single Judge, and heard Learned Counsel for the Parties at length. Section 9 of Insecticide Act reads as under.
"9. Registration of insecticides.-(1) Any person desiring to import or manufacture any insecticide may apply to the Regi
AI
Interim order deciding merits without counter-affidavit is appealable judgment under Letters Patent; Sections 9(3) and 9(3B) of Insecticides Act apply distinctly.
The absence of fraudulent intent and the availability of alternative remedies under the Insecticides Act preclude criminal liability under IPC Section 420.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prior registration for the import of Ethephon under the Insecticides Act and the burden of proof on the petitioner to establish ....
The manufacturers of insecticides have a right to retest the insecticides by the CIL under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and if they are deprived of this right, the proceedings against....
A licensed dealer of insecticides is protected under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and cannot be penalized without evidence of wrongdoing.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of limitation for filing a complaint under the Insecticides Act commences from the date of receipt of the analyst's report, and the....
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
