Unikil Pesticides Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India Anr & Anr

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J. MAY 09, 2023 aks

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 09.05.2023 % LPA 530/2022 UNIKIL PESTICIDES PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Aftab Rasheed, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr.Waize Ali Noor, Ms. Shreya V. Mehra & Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Advocates for Respondents No.1/ UOI. + LPA 536/2022 UNIKIL PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Aftab Rasheed, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr.Waize Ali Noor, Ms. Shreya V. Mehra & Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Advocates for Respondents No.1/ UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ. (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