Syngenta India Ltd v. Union of India

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J JULY 01, 2009 'ajk'

Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 17.04.2009 Judgment pronounced on: 01.07.2009 + W.P. (C) 8123/2008 SYNGENTA INDIA LTD. ..... PETITIONER Through: Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ruchi Agnihotri Mahajan and Ms. Anushree Tripathi, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA ..... RESPONDENT Through: Mr. K. K. Sharma, Advocate for Resp. Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Laliet Kumar and Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocates for Resp. No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest? Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat 1. The petitioner, in these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns the decision of the Union Department of Agriculture, dated 5-11-2008, rejecting its appeal under Section 10 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 ("the Act") against the decision of the Registration Committee to granting for Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG to the third respondent, (hereafter "Jaishree") in its 293rd meeting held o 26.09.2008. 2. The facts necessary for deciding the case are that with the Act was brought into force with express the object of regulating the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals, Page 2 and for matters connected with it. Any prospective manufacturer or importer of any insecticide/pesticide in India is primarily governed by the regime of this Act. One of the areas of focus of the Act, is on import of insecticides and formulations, which it strives to regulate; the concern is enforcement of restrictions on rampant import of chemicals. The Act delegates the function to scrutinize, examine and analyze insecticides to the Registration Committee ("the Committee", Respondent No.2 in this case). Section 5 enacts for the constitution and functions of the committee, for enabling registration of insecticides on the receipt of applications, after enquiring into the safety and efficacy of the product (Section 5 (1)). Rule 4 of the Insecticide Rules (hereafter "the Rules") elaborates on the functions of the Committee. Under Section 5 (5), the committee regulates its procedure and conduct of business, including the grant of registrations to parties desirous of importing or manufacturing insecticides, for which purpose it has formulated guidelines. It has apparently issued a check List specifying the various parameters on which data is required to be submitted by an applicant along with its Application for Registration. 3. Part B and C of the Checklist prescribe submission of data in respect of "Bio Efficacy and Residues" and "Toxicity". Form I of Schedule I under Rule 6 of the Rules provides the necessary contents of an Application seeking Registration of an insecticide. Clause 5 in Form I requires full disclosure of source of supply of the insecticide/chemical and its chemical composition, etc. Clauses 7 & 8 prescribe complete submission of data (as per details specified by RC) on Toxicity (interaction with soil, plant, animals and humans) and bio efficacy. All these, contends the petitioner, reveal that complete disclosure of information about an insecticide's source as well as the submission of data are essential pre-requisites to be fulfilled by an Applicant before its request for registration. 4. Section 9 of the Act, relevant for the purpose of this case, provides for three kinds of registrations. The first, i.e provisional registration (Section 9 (3-B)) –is granted to an applicant for a period of two years when an insecticide is introduced for the first time in India. It can be granted pending an enquiry. It is contended that this provision pre- supposes insufficiency of examination of the data by the committee; a registration under Section 9 (3B) is also granted in the event of agricultural exigencies, e.g. outbreak of an epide