Interim order deciding merits without counter-affidavit is appealable judgment under Letters Patent; Sections 9(3) and 9(3B) of Insecticides Act apply distinctly.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

These Writ Appeals have been filed challenging the interim order passed by this Court in W.M.P.(MD)Nos.25571 & 26998 of 2025 in W.P.(MD)NoS.32496 & 34177 of 2025, dated 28.11.2025.

2. The above said Writ Petitions have been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to declare the impugned direction of the letter bearing F.No.13035/37/2018-PP-I-Part(I), dated 15.09.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent and the decision of the 2^nd respondent to comply with the impugned direction in the 467^th Registration Committee Meeting as null and void, being arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

3. It is stated by the Writ Petitioners that 2^nd respondent is a statutory body constituted under Section 5 of “the Insecticides Act, 1968” (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). As per Section 5(5) of the Act, the 2^nd respondent is empowered to regulate its own procedure and the conduct of the business to be transacted by it. Further, as per Rule 4 of “the Insecticides Rules, 1971” (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), the 2^nd respondent is empowered to carry out such other incidental or consequential matters necessary for carrying out the functions assigned to it under the Act or the Rules. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent enjoys autonomy in granting registration as per the provisions of the Act and to take necessary incidental and consequential decisions for granting registration in line with the fundamental purpose of the Act ie., to regulate import, manufacture, sale transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals and for matters connected therewith.

4. It is further stated that 2^nd respondent has been providing extensions to the provisional registration under Section 9(3B) of the Act, within its powers to enable the LLIN manufactures to conduct the bio efficacy test in accordance with the ICMR protocols and to address the practical difficulties faced by LLIN manufactures in obtaining the bio efficacy data which is required for applying to regular registration under Section 9 of the Act. Section 9(3B) of the Act, does not prohibit the 2^nd respondent to grant extension of provisional registration. As per Section 5 of the Act, the 2^nd respondent only has the power to deal with the registration activity specified under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, these Writ Petitions have been filed on the premise that the 1^st respondent has taken a decision not to grant extension of provisional registration under Section 9(3B) of the Act. Hence, the 1^st respondent lacks the authority to make such decision and to direct a compliance by the 2^nd respondent. Hence, the direction issued by the first respondent to comply with the impugned direction is liable to be declared as null and void, on the ground that it is in violation of the fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade or business, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

5. The learned Single Judge, though declaration is sought in respect of the impugned direction issued on 15.09.2025, has passed a detailed order staying the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present appeals have been filed.

6. Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the appellants, would contend that though the order appears to be interim in nature, the learned Single Judge has examined the merits and granted the main relief in the interim order