* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#33
+ LPA 367/2009
SYNGENTA INDIA LTD. .... Appellant
Through Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Ruchi Agnihotri Mahajan,
Adv.
versus
UOI THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF AGRICILTURE
& CO- OPRATION & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr.
Gaurav Duggal, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Mr.
Sandeep Bajaj, Advs. for R-1/UOI.
Mr.S. Ganesh and Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog,
Senior Advocates with Mr. Laliet Kumar and
Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advs. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1.Whether reporters of the local news papers
be allowed to see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
ORDER
% 11.08.2009
The appellant Syngenta India Ltd. has preferred this appeal
against the judgment and order dated 1.7.2009, passed by S.
Ravindra Bhat, J. in W.P(C) No. 8123/2008. In the writ petition the
appellant impugned the decision of the Department of
Agriculture, Government of India, dated 5.11.2008, rejecting its
appeal under Section 10 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (“the Act”)
against the decision of the Registration Committee (‘Committee’
for short) for granting registration for Emamectin Benzoate 5%
SG to the third respondent – M/s Jaishree Agro Industries Ltd. in
its 293rd meeting held on 26.9.2008. The learned Judge came to
LPA No.367-09 Page 1 of 18
the conclusion that the litigation was speculative, as the attempt
was clearly to invite the Court to make a policy declaration, which
could not have been made under any circumstances and the
pendency of this proceeding had also resulted in prejudice to the
third respondent, who was constrained to give an undertaking not
to give effect to its registration that has subsisted all this while.
Consequently, the learned Judge dismissed the petition with
heavy costs.
2. The facts necessary for deciding this appeal are as follows :
In 2003 the appellant filed an application for registration
under Section 9(3) of the Act for import of technical (TIT) sourced
from its parent factory in Switzerland, and for indigenous
manufacture of formulation (FIM) for the insecticide, Emamectin
Benzoate 5 % Soluble Granules (“Emamectin 5% SG”). The
Committee noted that its (appellants’) data was incomplete on
various parameters like toxicity and bio-efficacy, in its meeting
held on 2.7.2004. The appellant, therefore, could not be granted
a registration under Section 9 (3) of the Act. The appellant,
however, was in the meanwhile, asked by the Committee to
convert its application to one under Section 9(3-B), on account of
an infestation of cotton crop by bollworm at the relevant time, as
Emamectin is known to be effective in controlling such
infestation. Thus, a decision was taken by the Committee to
grant a provisional registration under Section 9 (3B) of the Act to
the appellant in the same categories of TIT (Import of Technical)
and FIM (Indigenous Manufacture of Formulation). Accordingly,
on 21.7.2004, certificates for provisional registration valid till
LPA No.367-09 Page 2 of 18
20.7.2006 were granted to the appellant in the categories of TIT
and FIM under S.9 (3B), for Emamectin 5% SG. This provisional
registration permitted commercialization of the insecticide (since
the grant of provisional registration was only because of the
demand expressed by the State Governments); but was subject
to a limit of a total quantity of 5 (five) Metric Tonnes of Technical
Emamectin permitted to the appellant during the period of 2
years. It is stated that from this 5 MT the appellant indigenously
manufactured about 100 MT of formulation, and used it for
commercialization as well as compilation and generation of
exhaustive data. The provisional registrations granted to the
appellant in the categories of TIT and FIM lapsed on 20.07.2006.
By that time the appellant claims to have collated and completed
its deficient data. On 11.09.2006, the appellant applied afresh
under Section 9 (3) of the Act in the category FIT (Import of
Formulation). On 24.7.2007, the appellant was granted
registration under Section 9 (3) of the Act in the category of FIT
(Import of Formulation).
3. On 27.07.2007, the respondent no. 3, applied for a
registration in the categories of “TIT” (Import of Technical) and
“FIM” (Indigenous Manufacture of Formulation) for Emamectin 5%
SG under Section 9(3B) of the Act. However, the respondent no.
3, was not granted registration because the appellant was
granted the registration under Section 9(3) before respondent
No.3 and the grant of registration under Section 9(3B) is only for
introduction of the product for the first time. This fact was
intimated to the respondent No.3 vide Secretariat of Central
LPA No.367-09 Page 3 of 18
Insecticides Board & Registration Committee’s letter
No.1/TI/9(3B)/2006-CIR.II dated 24.7.2007. Therefore, the
respondent no. 3 requested that its application may be
considered under Section 9(3) for import of the product from a
new (alternate) source, which is permissible under already
existing guidelines of the Committee requiring lesser data
package because the efficacy and safety of the product had been
established to the satisfaction of the Committee. Accordingly, an
application was submitted by the respondent no. 3 on 7.8.2007
for registration as TIT(new source) under Section 9(3). Along
with the application required information / data was also
submitted by the respondent no. 3, as was applicable and
required in respect of application under Section 9(3) for TIT (new
source). The data submitted comprised more than 4000 pages of
detailed technical studies, analysis, reports and other data,
including reports of numerous studies conducted by Jawaharlal
Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indian Agriculture Research
Institute, Tamil Nadu Agriculture University etc. which are well
known institutions in the field of agriculture. The Committee
verified the claims of the respondent no. 3 from the data
submitted to it and granted the registration to the respondent no.
3 under Section 9(3) of the Act in its 293rd Meeting held on
26.09.2008.
4. The appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 10 of
the Act to the Central Government, i.e the appellate authority,
came to be dismissed by order dated 5.11.2008, which interalia
reads as follows :
LPA No.367-09 Page 4 of 18
“M/s Syngenta India Limited (M/s Syngenta)
have appealed against grant of registration to
M/s Jaishree Agro Industries Ltd. (M/s Jaishree).
They have mentioned that the Government had
agreed to provide three years freeze on data
submitted by the applicants for formulation
import under Section 9(3) of the Act; that there
is no technical Emamectin registered in the
country under Section 9(3) as of how; that in
terms of the policy enunciated in 284th meeting
of the Registration Committee, the technical
would be deemed to be registered after three
years form the date of formulation import; that
as Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG formulation for
import was registered in their favour on
26.07.2007, the technical can be deemed to be
registered only after 3 years; that the grant of
registration for technical to M/s Jaishree
presumes registration of technical prematurely
before the expiry of 3 years; that registration for
import of technical from alternate source has
been granted to M/s Jaishree based on truncated
data requirement; that as per guidelines for
registration the registrant under section 9(3) is
required to submit the complete data on its own
which should be applicable for M/s Jaishree also
who have relied on data furnished by M/s
Syngenta instead as implied in their
presentation made in the 278th meeting of the
Registration Committee; that policy guidelines
should be applicable prospectively and not
retrospectively; that the decision of the
Registration Committee taken in its 293rd
meeting is contrary to the decision taken on
284th meeting; that equating registration under
section 9(3) with registration under section
9(3B) for computing the 3 year period for
effecting deemed registration of technical in
contrary to the earlier decision and is arbitrary
and illegal; that their provisional registration for
Emamectin Benzoate under section 9(3B) which
expired on 20.07.2006 was restricted to import
of 5 MT of technical grade material to deal with
exigency of bollworm infestation in cotton at the
request of State Governments; that the
impugned decisions taken on 293rd meeting
may be stayed till the matter is decided; that
the impugned decision of 293rd meeting
(agenda items 6.5 and 3.7) be quashed. In the
hearing held on 04.11.2008, the representatives
of M/s Syngenta elaborated on these points and
also asserted that the letter dated 18.02.2008 of
the Government was for formulations for import
and not for indigenous manufacture and
LPA No.367-09 Page 5 of 18
therefore the registration issued in 2004 for
indigenous manufacture of the formulation to
them did not come under its purview.The Secretary, CIB&RC, vide letter no.13-
29/2008-CIR.I dated 30.10.2008, has questioned
the locus standi of M/s Syngenta in the matter of
grant of registration to another applicant as the
matter is between the Registration Committee
and another applicant. It has been stated that as
per the directive of the Department of
Agriculture & Cooperation dated 18.02.2008, the
period of deemed registration is to be computed
from the date of registration with
commercialization under section 9(3B), i.e. from
21.07.2004. The registration to M/s Jai shree,
who have submitted requisite data under the
relevant guidelines, has been granted as per the
policy of the Government and the guidelines of
the Registration Committee. The provisional
registration was granted to M/s Syngenta in
2004 at their own request. In view of these
averments, the appeal is liable to be set aside.
These points were further elaborated by
Secretary, CIB&RC in the hearing on 04.11.2008.Section 10 of the Act provides that “Any person
aggrieved by the decision of the Registration
Committee under section 9 may, within a period
of 30 days from the date on which the decision
is communicated to him, appeal in the
prescribed manner…” M/s Syngenta, already
holding a registration of the insecticide in
question, are an interested party in the matter.
It would be too narrow an interpretation if the
scope of section 10 is confined to the
applicant/registrant alone. The decision of the
Registration Committee are in public domain
and are displayed on the internet. It would not
be fair to deny any person a change to appeal
against a decision of the Registration Committee
if he is aggrieved by that decision, provided the
person has a clear interest in the decision.Coming to the issues raised in the appeal, it is
noted that the Government has been issuing
directives from time to time for proper
enforcement of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and
the rules made thereunder, and in doing so it
has been taking into account the views of the
different sections of the pesticides industry. The
letter dated 30.10.2007, issued in view of the
instances where formulation had been
registered for import without registration of
LPA No.367-09 Page 6 of 18
technical under section 9(3) thus blocking
registration under section 9(4) and created a
monopolistic situation, also took into account
the industry’s concern to allow data protection
for 3 years till suitable legislative changes are
made. The letter dated 18.02.2008 included the
category of registration under section 9(3B) with
commercialization in this dispensation with a
view to remove the perverse tendency to
continue with provisional 9(3B) registration with
commercialization, thereby creating
monopolistic situation. The data protection for 3
years is available to his category also. It would
also be disingenuous to make a distinction
between registration of formulation for import
and registration of formulation for indigenous
manufacture for this purpose as indefinite
protection in either case would have the same
consequence, i.e. existence of a monopolistic
situation. Application received for grant of
registration for the same product from any other
source thereafter is treated under the category
of new source and the data requirements for
that category apply which have been met by M/s
Jaishree. The registration under section 9(3B)
with commercialization was granted to M/s
Syngenta at their own request in 2004. The
Registration Committee has taken the decision
in question (agenda items 6.5 and 3.7) in its
293rd meeting in line with the policy laid down
by the Government. As such there is no reason
to interfere with these decisions. The appeal is,
therefore, dismissed.”5. After a very elaborate and detailed consideration of the
facts and law, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition
challenging the order of the Central Government passed in
appeal under Section 10 of the Act.
6. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, inter alia raised the following four submissions before
us:
(i) that though the respondent no. 3 was effectively
LPA No.367-09 Page 7 of 18
seeking registration on parameters / criterionapplicable to registrations under Section 9(4) of the
Act (“Me Too”) by placing substantial reliance on data
of the appellant, the Committee erroneously granted
to the respondent No.3 registration under Section 9(3)
of the Act;
(ii) that in any event the data submitted by the appellant
pertained to a technical / active ingredient having a
purity of minimum 95% whereas the maximum purity
available with the supplier of the respondent no. 3 is
90%. Thus, the data submitted by the appellant was
for an entirely different product and there could be no
reliance whatsoever on the appellant’s data;
(iii) that the order of the Committee granting registration
to the respondent no. 3 amounts to unjustified dilution
of the data submitted by the appellant which is liable
to be protected under the guidelines issued by the
Government vide circular dated 30.10.2007;
(iv) that Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18.02.2008
purportedly clarifying the circular dated 30.10.2007 is
arbitrary and illegal.
7. Before adverting to the submissions made by Mr. Mukul
Rohatgi, we may briefly refer to the scheme of the Insecticides
Act, 1968 (‘The Act’ for short). The Act was brought into force on
2.9.1968 with 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 connected there with.
LPA No.367-09 Page 8 of 18
Any prospective manufacturer or importer of any insecticide /pesticide in India is primarily governed by the regime of this Act.
No insecticide can be imported into India / manufactured
indigenously, unless the prospective importer / manufacturer has
obtained registration under Section 9 of the Act. An insecticide
contains an active ingredient or the raw material called the
technical and after adding certain additives, these result in
formulation. For each activity, there has to be an approved
registration of the formulation and/or technical as the case may
be. A desirous party can either import the technical of an
insecticide and manufacture the formulation indigenously or
import the formulation of the insecticide for direct marketing and
use in India upon obtaining the approval of the Committee.
8. Section 5 of the Act vests the power / function to scrutinize,
examine and analyze insecticides as to their safety and efficacy
on the Committee. Section 5 makes elaborate provisions 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. Under
Section 5(5), the Committee regulates its procedure and conduct
of business, including the grant of registrations of parties
desirous of importing or manufacturing insecticides, for which
purpose it has formulated guidelines. It has also issued a
Checklist specifying the various parameters on which data is
required to be submitted by an applicant along with its
application for registration. Rule 4 of the Insecticides Rules
elaborates on the functions of the Committee. Section 9 of the
LPA No.367-09 Page 9 of 18
Act provides for three kinds of registrations: (i) Section 9(3-B) – aprovisional registration which 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 and also in
the event of agricultural exigencies. This section presupposes
insufficiency of examination of data by the Committee; (ii)
Section 9(3) – regulation registration – The regular registration is
granted only after submission of complete data by an applicant.
The Committee conducts a full and in-depth study of the data and
has to be ensure itself of the efficacy, toxicity and safety (for
humans and other animals) of the insecticide before granting
registration; and (iii) Section 9 (4) provides for what is popularly
known as a “Me Too” “registration”. The registration under
Section 9(4) is granted on same conditions and is only granted
when there already exists a registration under Section 9 (3) for a
particular Insecticide. It is obvious that these “same” conditions
necessarily mean and include the same source of import also.
9. At this stage, we may refer to the guidelines framed by the
Committee for the registration of insecticides and parameters /
criterion fixed by it to effectuate verification of the efficacy and
safety of the insecticides. The Committee has issued a Checklist
specifying the various parameters on which data is required to be
submitted by an applicant along with its application for
registration – like Chemistry; Bio-efficacy, toxicity, etc. The
Checklist has enumerated categories under which the registration
of an insecticide can be sought, the relevant categories (for the
present Appeal) are :
LPA No.367-09 Page 10 of 18
(a) TIT - import of technical (b) FIM - indigenous manufacture of formulation. (c) FIT - import of formulation. (d) TIT (new source) - import of technical from a different / new source.10. The Checklist framed by the Committee is at pages 151 –
156 of the compilation and the Checklist for TIT (new source),
which is at page 151, makes it clear that the Committee has laid
down that in the case of registration of an insecticide which has
already been permitted by the Committee in the past under
Section 9(3)of the Act, and which is now proposed to be procured
from a new source, only the attenuated or reduced data, material
evidence specified under column no. 12 of the Checklist is
required to be furnished and if such data is furnished then the
applicant will be entitled in law to registration under Section 9(3)
of the Act. We may also mention that the Central Government
has issued the circular dated 30.10.2007 introducing a concept of
deemed registration of the technical/active ingredient of the
formulation without a separate application being made for the
same. The circular also provides for data protection for three
years from the date of registration of the formulation. By OM
dated 18.2.2008 the Central Government has clarified that the
period of three years is to be reckoned not from the date of the
grant of registration under Section 9(3) of the Act but if
applicable, from the grant of provisional registration under
Section 9(3B), if previously granted with permission to
commercialize.
LPA No.367-09 Page 11 of 18
11. In the above background of the provisions of the Act, rules
and the relevant guidelines, we may now proceed to deal with the
submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellant.
Submissions (i) & (ii)
12. We have gone through the entire records and it is
absolutely clear to us that in the present case, the registration
which was granted to respondent no. 3 was under Section 9(3)
and not under Section 9(4) of the Act. It is also seen from the
records that for the purpose of taking the decision to grant
registration to respondent no. 3 under Section 9(3), the
Committee has followed the standard guidelines and criteria
which are set out in the Checklist framed and issued by the
Committee, in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 5(5)
read with Section 9(3) of the Act, under which it is the
prerogative of the Committee to decide the criteria, material,
evidence and data on the basis of which the Committee would
take a decision to grant registration under Section 9(3) of the Act.
Further, the record of the proceedings before the Committee also
makes it clear that the application of respondent no. 3 for
registration was only under Section 9(3) and was under the head
“Technical import from new source” i.e. TIT (new source). The
data submitted by respondent no. 3 comprises more than 4000
pages of detailed technical studies, analysis, reports etc. It is
also seen that in the 293rd meeting of the Committee the data
was verified by the Committee under Section 9(3) and on
satisfaction about the data the registration came to be granted in
LPA No.367-09 Page 12 of 18
favour of the respondent No.3 under Section 9(3). The CentralGovernment has also in its counter affidavit filed before the
learned single Judge clearly stated that the data submitted by the
respondent no. 3 was more than adequate for grant of
registration as TIT (new source). It has been further stated in the
counter affidavit of the Central Government that chemical
composition of the insecticide of the appellant and that of the
respondent no. 3 are the same.
13. Learned single Judge has minutely examined the records
and has recorded the following findings:
“34. So far as Jaishree is concerned, the
application for registration was made for
indigenous manufacture, under Section 9(3B) on
20.02.2006. It contends having furnished
complete data reports etc. in accordance with
the prescribed checklist. It sought to have the
application, converted into one under Section 9
(3); later by its letter dated 6-6-2007, it
requested the committee to process the
application, under section 9(3), stating as
follows:“We have applied for registration of
Emamectin benzoate Technical Import and
its formulation Indigenous manufacture u/s
9(3b) of Insecticides Act, 1968, in February,
2006. As today, our both the applications
are complete from all disciplines as per
requirements of 9 (3b).With reference to your above said letter, we
are requesting to consider our above
applications u/s 9(3) new source. As per the
guidelines and requirements of 9(3) our
both applications are completed from all
disciplines except Toxicity and packaging.Now we are submitting required
information/data in both the disciplines i.e
toxicity and packaging as per 9(3) New
source.LPA No.367-09 Page 13 of 18
Please find enclosed additional information
for consideration of our applications of
Emamectin Benzoate Technical for
Technical Import u/s 9(3) New Source and
its formulation u/s 9(3).So far as Emamectin benzoate formulation
Indigenous Manufacturer is concern, the
CIB & RC has already ensured efficacy and
safety to human beings and animals about
the insecticide and relevant data is already
available with CIB & RC. Therefore, it is not
required to submit repeated data on
observation in man (Health record of spray
operators) and toxicity to Livestock (field
trials and observations) or may be
submitted later on if required…”
The subsequent letter of 14th August, 2007 by
Jaishree to the committee enclosed further
information on aspects such as bio-effectiveness,
phytotoxicity and residue in plant. The official
respondents categorically submit that the
petitioner’s data was not used by Jaishree; it is
also averred that independent testing is not done
by the committee, which only goes through the
claims, and co-relates with the data furnished to
it. Its contention in this regard, inter alia, is that
Jaishree“requested that their application may be
considered under Section 9 (3) for import of
the product from a new (alternate) source,
which is permissible under already existing
guidelines of the Registration Committee
requiring lesser data package because the
efficacy and safety of the product had been
established to the satisfaction of the
Registration Committee (Respondent No.2).
Therefore, no separate or special
dispensation of data was made in the
process of granting registration to
Respondent No.3. It may also be mentioned
that no verification of sources is done in
any case including that of the petitioner.
The Registration Committee verifies the
claims of the applicants from the data
submitted to it. It is pertinent to mention
here that having attained some knowledge,
the Registration Committee, or any one for
that matter, can further use the knowledge
in routine. It is due to this reason the
Registration Committee had framed and
adopted the guidelines for this category
LPA No.367-09 Page 14 of 18
with this vision to avoid unnecessary
repetition much before this case. It is more
so because the chemical composition of the
product of the Petitioner and that of the
Respondent No.3 are same. If the product
of the Petitioner could prove efficacious and
safe on certain minimum data, it is not
understood as to how the product of the
Respondent No.3 would not be efficacious
and safe with the same chemical
composition.
(emphasis supplied)
35. It is evident from the above extract, that the
committee adopted, on a uniform basis,
guidelines which had been evolved earlier that if
the efficacy of a product is established, then, in
the case of a different source, the authorities
would only verify, on application of the
prescribed parameters about the safety of such
new source, to human beings and animals. The
same yardstick was applied to the petitioners
and Jaishree.
36. The above discussion should have been
sufficient to deal with the petitioners’ contention
that Jaishree used its data; however, since
parties had urged factual contentions, in order to
satisfy itself that the committee’s approach was
correct, the court examined the materials. The
petitioner, for bio-efficacy of emamectin
benzoate 5% SF conducted six studies on Okra,
three at University of Agricultural Sciences
Dharwad, during different seasons; two at TN
Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 2003-04 and
2006 and one at Punjab Agricultural University,
Ludhiana. Jaishree, on the other hand, relied on
TN Agricultural University study at Location
Allapalayam, Season 2005-06 and location
Maampali, season 2006. The four other studies’
locales were Malwa Plateau and Nimar Valley, for
different seasons, through the Jawaharlal Nehru
Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Khargone. The
petitioners’ cotton studies were from All India Co-
ordinated Cotton Improvement Project,
Coimbatore ( two studies) and Tamil Nadu
Agricultural University, Coimbatore ( three
studies). Jaishree’s studies, on cotton, on the
other hand, were four studies from the Jawaharlal
Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyala, during different
seasons, two studies from the Indian Agricultural
Research Institute, Delhi and two studies of the
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. It would not
be necessary to go into greater details, save
LPA No.367-09 Page 15 of 18
noticing that the Union’s stand is in support of
Jaishree, and that the materials on record justify
their position that the petitioner’s data was not
used, in support of Jaishree’s claim.
14. In our opinion therefore submissions (i) & (ii) are
without any merit.
Submissions (iii) & (iv)
15. Insofar as the allegation of dilution of data is concerned it is
required to be noted that no provision of the Act, or Rules,
prescribe or enact data exclusivity or protection. The October
2007 guidelines, directing a data exclusivity provision, was
brought into force after the appellant’s registration certificate
was issued. As per the circular dated 30.10.2007, as amended by
OM dated 18.2.2008, the exclusivity is only for a period of three
years from the date of the provisional registration. Thus the
period prescribed under the circular had already expired before
the registration granted to the third respondent. It is also
pertinent to note that no challenge has been raised to the OM
dated 18.2.2008 in the writ petition though submission appears
to have been raised across the Bar questioning the OM on the
ground of the arbitrariness. In any event, we find that the
submission regarding the data protection is completely
misconceived. It is not the case of the appellant that the
respondent no. 3 in importing its “TIT” has in any way violated
the confidentiality of appellant’s data. Mr.Ganesh, appearing for
the respondent No.3, submitted and in our opinion, rightly, that in
a case of registration of “TIT” (new source) it is not as if the
applicant is utilizing the materials or the intellectual property of
the earlier applicant. The correct position is that since the
LPA No.367-09 Page 16 of 18
Committee has, on an earlier occasion after fully and carefully
studying all the relevant and applicable materials, approved a
particular insecticide there is no need thereafter for another
applicant who wishes to import the same insecticide albeit from a
different source to reinvent the wheel as it were and to place on
record the entire mass of material and data which was required
to register the said insecticide originally. In such a situation that
the Committee, which is a high powered technical body, has
considered it appropriate to issue a Checklist providing that when
a person desires to import the same insecticide, but from a
different source, the requirement of submission of data are
appropriately reduced. The respondent no. 3 has fully complied
with the guidelines of the requirements of the Checklist issued by
the Committee. In our opinion, therefore there is no illegality in
the action of the Committee in granting registration in favour of
the third respondent. In our opinion, the whole object of initiating
these proceedings is to somehow continue the monopoly of the
appellant in the product and sale of the insecticide in question. It
is pertinent to note that now the third respondent is selling the
same insecticide approximately at the rate of Rs.5,000 per kg.
which has been all along sold by the appellant at the rate of
about Rs.9,000/- per kg.
16. We dismiss the appeal with costs of Rs.1 lac, which will be
paid by the appellant to the respondent nos. 1 and 3 in equal
proportion.
CHIEF JUSTICE
LPA No.367-09 Page 17 of 18
MANMOHAN, J
AUGUST 11, 2009
dk/v
LPA No.367-09 Page 18 of 18