BAYER CROPSCIENCE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Service of rule is waived by learned advocate Shri KT Dave for respondents Nos. 1 -2 and learned advocate Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah for respondents Nos. 3 -25.

(2.) THE present petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and Insecticides Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) for the prayers, inter alia, that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned guidelines issued by respondent No.2 -Registration Committee published by way of Minutes of the 347th Meeting at Annexure -A, on the grounds stated in the memo of petitions.

(3.) LEARNED Sr. Counsel Shri Joshi referred to the papers and the impugned fresh guidelines which is produced at Annexure -A and pointedly referred to the background of the earlier litigation being Special Civil Application No. 2530 of 2013 and Special Civil Application No. 7928 of 2011 where also the guidelines were challenged by the indigenous manufacturers (some of the applicants who have been impleaded as party respondents in the present petitions). Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Joshi submitted that these fresh guidelines at Annexure -II which are purported to have been issued or modified pursuant to the order of this Court earlier are in fact affecting the rights of the petitioners. For that purpose, he pointedly referred to Annexure -II at page. 57 in SCA No. 6895 of 2014 and pointedly referred to clause 4 of the said guidelines and submitted that the condition that the sample of every consignment of formulation shall be drawn at the port and subject to the test of quality is added/modified by misconstruing the earlier order passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 7969 of 2013 in Special Civil Application No. 7928 of 2011 and allied matters dated 5.9.2013. He submitted that while considering the guidelines as existed which was a subject -matter in the earlier group of petitions the court has for the reasons stated therein passed the order directing suitable guidelines to be framed which has been misinterpreted and which has been construed as a mandatory procedure which was not there. He therefore submitted that this misconception has led to such fresh guidelines or modifications which are challenged in the present petitions.