1. These writ petitions pertain to registration granted to the fourth respondent-M/s. Sumitomo Chemical India Private Ltd. (hereinafter, referred to as the applicant) under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The writ petitions are filed by the same person. He claims to be an activist of swadeshi movement. He challenges the orders passed by the authorities on the ground of procedural illegality. The substantial issue regarding registration is pending in appeal before the second respondent in W.P.(C) No.14962/2014. For the purpose of reference, exhibits in W.P.(C).No.14962/2014 are relied on.

2. The Insecticides Act, 1968 (a Central Act), was enacted to regulate the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides in order to prevent risk to human beings, animals etc. Under Section 5 of the Act, a Registration Committee is constituted. Registration Committee can devise its own procedure in respect of business to be transacted by it. The third respondent in these writ petitions is the Registration Committee constituted under the Insecticides Act. The applicant approached the Committee for registration. That was declined as per the minutes of the meeting held on 20/10/2009. According to the writ petitioner, that refusal has attained finality. Ext.P1 is the decision of Registration Committee. In the year 2012, the Registration Committee took a decision as per Ext.P2 to grant registration to the applicant. This appears to have been done based on an application submitted by the applicant, wherein the applicant has pointed out an apparent error in appreciating the toxicity of the product. Petitioner challenged Ext.P2 under Section 10 of the Insecticides Act before the appellate authority. The appellate authority noted that no appeal is maintainable under Section 10 and treating the appeal as a revision and exercising power under Section 11, partly allowed the appeal by holding that the opinion of Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Delhi on toxicity of the chemical and its formulation shall be taken before taking final decision on registration. Thus, it was remanded to the Registration Committee for taking a decision.

3. W.P.(C).No.28454/2013 is filed challenging the decision of the appellate authority in not adverting to procedural illegality and irregularity revealed in the earlier decision of the Registration Committee. The case of writ petitioner is that the appellate authority failed to note that the Registration Committee has no authority to review its own decision declining the registration. According to the petitioner, the applicant, having failed to challenge the decision declining the registration, cannot seek to review the decision of the Committee without there being a challenge before the higher authority. The remedy, according to the petitioner, available to the applicant was to file an appeal against that decision.

4. Pursuant to remanding of the matter by the appellate authority, opinion of ICMR was obtained by the Registration Committee and thereafter, registration was granted to the applicant. Challenging grant of registration, Ext.P8 appeal is filed before the appellate authority. Ext.P7 is the decision of the Registration Committee after the remand. W.P.(C). No.14962/2014 is filed commanding the appellate authority to dispose the appeal and to stay the operation of Ext.P7 order.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant addressed various objections including locus standi of the writ petitioner. It is also argued that High Court does not have any jurisdiction to entertain these writ petitions.

6. In the facts and circumstances, the following points arise for consideration:

i. Whether this Court has any territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition;

ii whether the Registration Committee has power to review its own decision;

iii whether petitioner has any locus standi to challenge the procedure of the Registration Committee.

7. Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India co