2014 (4) TMI 267 - HC - Indian Laws

Vacation of interim relief Registration of the insecticides - It is submitted that the applicants, as importers, are only importing the formulations for which the applicants have sought the registration of the formulations and not registration of the technical grade/ material. - Deemed registration u/s 9(3) of the scheme of the Insecticides Act, 1968 - Discrimination between importer and indigenous manufacturer - Technical material registered or evaluated for impost of formulation or not - Held that - The provisions of the statute do not refer to or empower any such deeming provision or deemed registration which could be granted - The Statement of Objects and Reasons refers to the poisoning cases in Kerala and thereafter in Bombay which has led to the establishment of inquiry commission and the report that how the foodstuff can be contaminated and what would be the measures to be taken. There are subsequent amendments but a few relevant aspects which require consideration have not been placed on record or put to the notice like international conventions and treaties which provide for the minimum use of pesticides - The pesticides, human health and environment are aspects which are interlinked and there are studies and research which has led to such international conventions - The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has referred to the fact that 95 countries have agreed to new international convention on dangerous chemicals and pesticides - according to the United Nation s Environmental Programme, there are number of highly toxic chemicals that persist in the environment, accumulate in wild life and people. when the statute like the Act has been intended to have some amount of regulation on use of pesticides or import of pesticides which cannot be altogether avoided, some mechanism has to be provided by which the laws are implemented with more effectiveness and transparency - The Act does not provide for grant of deemed registration and it is by way of guidelines or procedure evolved by the Registration Committee such deemed registration is sought to be granted to the importers like the applicants which are intended to create monopoly in their favour - these aspects are also required to be considered. Though sufficient provision is made in the statute referring to the procedure u/s 9(4) of the Act for registration of insecticides, it cannot be said that the legislature is not conscious about such aspects, but what is required is a more sensitive and proper approach to deal with such issues at the time of actual implementation of the law thus, it would be in the fitness of things to leave larger issues aside for the purpose of deciding the present civil applications for vacating the interim relief - The interim relief may be vacated/modified subject to some of the conditions which takes care of the aspects of safety till fresh guidelines are issued by the Government and the matter is heard and decided finally thus, the interim relief stands vacated/modified subject to the certain conditions Decided in favour of Petitoner.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Allegations of non-registration and non-evaluation of technical material for import of formulations.
2. Claims of discrimination between importers and indigenous manufacturers.
3. The legality of "deemed registration" granted by the Registration Committee.
4. Safety concerns related to human life, agriculture, and the environment.
5. Procedural compliance with the Insecticides Act, 1968 and related rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Non-Registration and Non-Evaluation of Technical Material:

The applicants, who are importers, contended that the allegations by the petitioners regarding non-registration and non-evaluation of technical material for import of formulations are factually incorrect. They argued that no exemption from registration was granted and that the Registration Committee followed the statutory guidelines under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The importers stated that they only sought registration for formulations, not for the technical grade/material, and thus, there was no need for compulsory registration of the technical grade/material.

2. Claims of Discrimination:

The petitioners, who are indigenous manufacturers, claimed discrimination, arguing that importers were treated differently, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They alleged that importers were granted exemptions, creating a monopoly for three years. However, the importers countered that the same registration procedure applied to both importers and indigenous manufacturers. They emphasized that even importers had to submit technical grade/material for verification and testing by the Central Insecticides Laboratory.

3. The Legality of "Deemed Registration":

The core issue was whether the "deemed registration" granted by the Registration Committee was in conformity with the Act. The petitioners argued that the Act did not provide for "deemed registration," and such a provision created a monopoly favoring importers for three years, depriving indigenous manufacturers of registration rights under Section 9(4) of the Act. The court observed that the Act did not empower the Registration Committee to grant "deemed registration," and such a provision was contrary to the statutory provisions.

4. Safety Concerns:

The petitioners raised concerns about the safety of human life, agriculture, and the environment, arguing that non-registration of technical material could lead to the import of harmful pesticides. The court acknowledged these concerns, emphasizing the need for a transparent and effective mechanism to ensure safety and bioefficacy. The court noted that the actual physical sample of technical grade/material should be tested for each consignment to address safety concerns.

5. Procedural Compliance:

The court scrutinized the procedural compliance with the Insecticides Act, 1968, and related rules. It was highlighted that the Registration Committee's procedure for "deemed registration" was not provided by the statute and was beyond the Committee's statutory powers. The court emphasized the need for the Union of India to have more effective and transparent procedures to protect human life, agriculture, and the environment.

Conclusion:

The court vacated the interim relief, allowing the import of formulations subject to certain conditions to ensure safety. It directed that technical grade/material must be tested for each consignment, and no further "deemed registration" should be granted until the final hearing or issuance of appropriate guidelines by the Government of India. The court underscored the importance of balancing commercial interests with human safety and bioefficacy, calling for a more sensitive and proper approach in implementing the law.