Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court has held that a commercial competitor is not entitled to challenge the grant of registration under Section 10 of the Insecticides Act, 1968.

The Court held that Section 10 of the Act provides an appeal only against a decision refusing registration or cancelling an existing registration. A commercial competitor cannot invoke this provision to challenge the grant of a registration certificate to another company.

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment, observing that the High Court had exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review by effectively acting as an appellate authority over the decisions of the statutory authorities under the Act.

The dispute arose after the Registration Committee granted Crystal Crop Protection a registration certificate under Section 9(3) of the Insecticides Act for importing Halosulfuron methyl technical and manufacturing its formulation in India.

Respondent-Dhanuka Agritech Ltd., a commercial competitor, challenged the registration before the appellate/revisional authority under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act. After its challenge was rejected, Dhanuka approached the Delhi High Court.

The Single Judge upheld the registration granted to Crystal Crop Protection. However, the Division Bench subsequently reversed that decision and quashed the registration certificate.

Aggrieved, Crystal Crop Protection approached the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Court examined Section 10 of the Insecticides Act, which provides for an appeal against non-registration or cancellation of registration.

Rejecting the Respondent's reliance on the expression “any person aggrieved” used in the provision, the Court held that the expression must be read in the context of the specific decisions against which an appeal is permitted.

“Certainly, the private respondent before us cannot be termed as 'a person aggrieved' to invoke the remedy of an appeal, as provided under Section 10 of the 1968 Act,” the Court observed.

The Court further noted that Section 10 facilitates an appeal only against a decision of non-registration or cancellation of registration, which is required to be communicated to the person entitled to challenge it.

The Court also observed that judicial review of executive decisions, particularly those granting licences to commercial entities, is limited. It said the High Court had effectively acted as an appellate authority by overturning the conclusions of the statutory authorities, which had already been upheld by a Single Judge.

The Court further took note of the Union Government's affidavit detailing the scrutiny undertaken before granting registration, including laboratory testing that found the product's purity to be 98.53%.

Holding the High Court's judgment unsustainable in law and on merits, the Court allowed Crystal Crop's appeal and restored the registration certificate.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Mukta Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Barathi, Adv. Ms. Nitya Gupta, Adv. Mr. B Vittal, Adv. Ms. Kavya Arora, Adv. Mr. Vishal Thakur, Adv. Mr. Sarvesh Singh- 2094, AOR

For Respondent(s)  Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Shivam Goel- 4151, AOR Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy, Adv. Mr. Ankit Virmani, Adv. Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR Ms. Devanshi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Adv. Mr. Akhil Mital, Adv.  Ms. Madhulika Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Sushma Verma, Adv. Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, Adv. Ms. Anupriya Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Mitali Karwa, Adv.

Tags: