1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8 OF 1998 1.Lever Johnson (Consumer Products)Limited. & others. ...Petitioners. vs. 1.Union of India through the Secretary, Dept. of Agriculture & Co-operation & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.Chetan Kapadia with Lijan P.P. & Hemal Haryan i/b. M/s.M&M Legal Venture, for Petitioners. Mrs.Nita Masurkar with N.R.Prajapati, for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 14th July,2009. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge Communication dated 16.12.1997 from Respondent no.1 to 2 the petitioners. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that Communication are relevant, they read as under:- 3. Keeping in view of the above serious situation, both M/s.ICON, Chennai and M/s.Lever Johnson, Mumbai are advised as under:- (i) They should immediately stop violations of conditions of registration referred to above. (ii) They should take immediate steps to inform the public through mass media about the correct status of registered product which has not been approved with eucalyptus oil as a perfume under the Insecticides Act, 1968. (iii) They should take immediate action to withdraw the stocks of their brand name RAID from the market in the country for the insecticide as per subject mentioned above. 4. The Director of Agriculture, Tamil Nadu is requested to take immediately action to cancel the manufacturing licence for the above mentioned insecticide on account of gross violation of condition of registration and also take urgent measures to seize the stocks. In fact, all the aforesaid 3 violations have taken place only on account of manufacturing of this insecticide with unapproved chemical composition. It is to mention that their manufacturing plant for the insecticide under reference is located at 23, Shakthi Cooperative Industrial Estate, Pollachi-3, Coimbatore. 2. A reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent no.1. What is stated in paragraphs 4, 28F, 28G(i) and 28G(ii) are relevant, they read as under:- 4. I say and submit that the order impugned in this petition is in the form of an administrative reference advising the petitioners to recall their stocks on the grounds more specifically stated in the said reference being Exhibit A to the petition. 28F. ........ The impugned communication has been issued by the Secretary, Registration Committee, in the form of an advice to the petitioners in terms of condition No.(iii) of the Certificate of Registration. The impugned communication was also addressed to the Director of Agriculture, Government of Tamil Nadu with a request to take necessary action to cancel 4 the manufacturing licence of the petitioner No.2 as well as to take urgent measures to seize the misbranded stocks in the public interest and copies thereof endorsed to the Director of Agriculture (All States/UTs) to take urgent action to seize the misbranded stocks, in exercise of the powers conferred on Secretary, Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee under Clause 10(iii) and (iv) of the by-laws of the Registration Committee in view of the fact that the power to enforce the provisions of the Act rests with the State Government. As explained above, the impugned communication was only an administrative reference of advisory nature having no decisive effect either punitive or otherwise as the power to initiate proceedings, whether legal or otherwise, for violation of provisions of the Act as well as conditions of the Certificate of Registration/ licences rests with the notified officers of the States. G. The purpose of the impugned communication was two-fold :- (i) to advise the petitioners to refrain from the violation of the conditions of Certificate of Registration as also 5 contravening the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act. It was for the petitioners to listen to such advice or face proceedings as per provisions of the Act. Such advice was neither judicial/quasi-judicial having the force of law of cancelling their licence or seizing their stock or stopping their business. (ii) To initiate appropriate proceedings by the notified competent authorities in the States against violation of the conditions of the Certificate of Registration and contravention of the provision of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act by observing due process of law. Such a communication was not a judicial or quasi judicial direction to cancel the manufacturing licence and seize the misbranded stocks of the petitioner. In fact, the concerned authorities in the States are to initiate proceedings against the petitioners and take just decisions after giving reasonable opportunity to them as provided in the provision of the Insecticides Act. It is clear from these averments made in the affidavit that whatever contained in the communication impugned 6 in the petition, does not have direct adverse effect on the interest of the petitioners. It is merely an advice given to the petitioners and the petitioners are under no obligation to abide by it. No doubt an action against the petitioners would be initiated not on the advice but on the violation of conditions contained in the advice. But if such an action is initiated it is open to the petitioners to defend it and in that event all the contentions that would be available to the petitioners even if the the advice given is not obeyed would be available to the petitioners. In our opinion, in view of the statements made in the affidavit quoted above, it can safely be said that the communication impugned in the petition does not have any adverse effect on any legal rights of the petitioners. We again clarify that if any action is initiated against the petitioners on the basis of the impugned communication, the petitioners are free to raise all the contentions that may be available to them and that contentions will have to be considered by the Authority in accordance with law. In our opinion, no 7 further orders are necessary in the petition. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)