Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2685/2003 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2685 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
UNITED
PHOSPHOROUS LIMITED & 3 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
NANAVATI
ASSOCIATES for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4.
MR PS CHAMPANERI for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
RM CHHAYA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS PJ DAVAWALA for Respondent(s)
: 1,
MR JITENDRA MALKAN for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR PURVISH J
MALKAN for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for Respondent(s) : 2,
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 05/02/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
petitioners herein have prayed to direct the respondent no. 2 to
refrain from insisting on a permission to sell, stock or exhibit for
sale or distribute insecticide/pesticide within the State of Gujarat.
2. The
petitioner no. 1 carries on business of manufacture, production,
distribution and sale of pesticides, insecticide etc under licence
granted to it under section 13 of the Act. The respondent no. 2
issued directions insisting that in addition to license for sale,
stock and distribution every person indenting to sell, stock or
distribute insecticides and pesticides within the State of Gujarat
should obtain permission form it. The petitioners addressed letters
to various state governments pointing out that insistence on dealers
for obtaining permission for sale of registered pesticides is
non-statutory. However, being aggrieved by the insistence on the
part of the respondent authorities, the present petition is
preferred.
3. This
matter was admitted on 09.08.2004 only on the ground that in a
petition filed by the petitioners and others in the High Court of
Bombay, being Writ Petition No. 4597/02, the Bombay High Court
granted ad-interim relief.
4. Learned
advocate for the respondent has placed on record the copy of the
decision of the Bombay High Court wherein the petition is dismissed.
Paras 2 & 3 of the said judgement read as under:
“2.
Affidavit in reply has been filed only to reiterate what has been
provided for by Rules 10(3) and (4) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971.
In a rejoinder filed to this reply today, a very clear mention is
made which is not controverted that for each established in the State
of Maharashtra the petitioners hold a valid licence/permission as
contemplated by Rule 10(4) of the Insecticides Rules 1971.
3.
In view of this factual situation there is no cause for the
petitioner to make the above mentioned prayers. There is no proof on
record that there is any insistence for obtaining any other licence
than one mentioned in Rule 10(4) of the Insecticides Rules 1971.
4.
In this view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere.
Petition dismissed.”
5. As
a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the
opinion that the decision of the Bombay High Court will be applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus no further
orders are required to be passed. Petition stands disposed of
accordingly. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//
Top