Case: Dr. Ashok Vs. Union Of India

be specified in the notification pending investigation into the matter. In Other words, In respect o an insecticide within the meaning of section 3(e) ((iii) i.e. a preparation or formulation containing anyone or more of such substances specified in the schedule. the appropriate Government can immediately by issue of notification prohibit the sale. distribution or use of the same pending investigation. Under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 27. if the investigation is not completed within the period of 60 days the n the prohibition in question could be extended for such further period not exceeding 30 days in the aggregate. Under sub-section (2) if the Central Government on the basis of its own investigation or on receipt of the report from the state Government and after consultation with the Registration Committee is satisfied that the use of the said insecticide or batch is or is not likely to cause any such risk the n it may pass such order as it deems fit depending upon the circumstances of the case. either refusing to register the insecticide or cancel the Certificate of Registration. If already granted. The use of the word said insecticide in sub-section (2) obviously refers t o the insecticide in question which was the subject matter of consideration under sub-section (1) and in respect of which pending further investigation into the matter the Central Government has already issued a prohibition for sale, distribution or use of the insecticide in question. Therefore , the power of cancellation of Certificate of Registration conferred upon the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 27 can be exercised only in respect of any insecticide specified in sub-clause (iii) of clause (e) of section 3 i.e. a preparation or formulation of one or more of the substances specified in the schedule but the said power cannot be exercised in respect of an insecticide which is specified in the schedule itself by the Parliament. We are unable to accept the agreements advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General that sub-section (2) of section 27 is not restricted to an insecticide in respect of which the Central Government has already issued a notification prohibiting the sale. distribution or use pending investigation into the matter. The Scheme of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 27 is that in respect of a formulation which is also an insecticide within the meaning of section 3 (e) (iii) the Central Government for reasons to be recorded in writing and pending investigation into the matter can immediately prohibit sale. distribution or use and after further investigation can cancel the Certificate of Registration in respect the reof under sub-section (2) of Section 27. That being the position in exercise of such power under sub- section (2) of section 27 a certificate of Registration in respect of an insecticide under sub-section 3(e) (i) cannot be cancelled under sub-section (2) of section 27. This is also in consonance with the logic that an insecticide which is the formulation of any one or more of the substances specified in the schedule and is consumer oriented power of cancellation of registration certainly has been conferred upon the central Government but in respect of an insecticide which does not come to a consumer and is a substance specified in the schedule itself and therefore an insecticide under section 3(e) (i), the power has not been conferred upon the Central Government since the specified substance in the schedule has been specified by the Parliament itself. In view of the aforesaid conclusion of ours we would h old that those of the Certificates of Registration granted to the petitioner in respect of any formulations namely BHC 10% WP, the order of the Central Government cancelling Certificate of Registration is well within the jurisdiction and the re is no legal infirmity in the same. But in respect of Benzene Hexachloride which is one of the substances specified in the schedule and as such is an insecticide within the meaning of section 3 (e)(i) the re is no power with the Central Government under sub- section (2) of section 27 to cancel the Certificate of Registration.So far as the contention of Mr. Vaidyanathan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in the transferred case that consultation with the Registration committee is a pre-condition for exercise of power under sub-section (2) and such consultation being not the re. the issuance of notification is bad we are of the considered opinion that undoubtedly before the power under sub-section (2) of section 27 can be exercised the central Government is duty bound to have consultation with the Registration Committee. But in the case in hand having examined the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the different Ministries of the Central Government that the re has been due and substantial consultation with the Registration Committee which is apparent in the notification of December 1994 itself. and since the n the re has been further study into the matter and committees of experts have been constituted who have gone into the matter and on the basis of the reports submitted by such expert committee ultimately the Central Government has taken the final decision. It is not possible for us to hold that the re has been no consultation with the Registration Committee before exercising of power under sub- section (2) of section 27. Contention of Mr. Vaidyanathan. the learned senior counsel on this score. There for, must be rejected. Before we part with this case. and having examined the different provisions of the Insecticides Act. 1968 we find that once a substance is specified in the schedule as contemplated under Section 3(e)(i) the n the re is no power for cancelling the registration certificate issued in respect of the same substance even if on scientific study it appears that the substance in question is grossly detrimental to the human health. This is a lacuna in the legislation itself. and therefore , steps should be taken for appropriate amendment to the legislation. 17.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]An examination of the aforesaid provisions of the Act indicates that before registering a particular insecticide the Registration Committee is duty bound to hold such enquiry as it deems fit for satisfying itself that the insecticide to which the application relate s is safe to human beings and animals.Coming now to the core question namely whether under Section 27 of the Act the central Government can cancel the Certificate of Registration in respect of an insecticide.It appears to us that under subsection (1) of section 27 when the Central Government or the State Government is of the opinion that the use of any insecticide specified ine (iii) of clause (e) of section 3 or any specific batch there of is likely to involve risk to human beings or animals and it is necessary to take immediate action the n on recording reasons in writing the sale. distribution or use of the insecticide or batch can be prohibited in such area. to such extent not exceeding 60 days as may be specified in the notification pending investigation into the matter. In Other words, In respect o an insecticide within the meaning of section 3(e) ((iii) i.e. a preparation or formulation containing anyone or more of such substances specified in the schedule. the appropriate Government can immediately by issue of notification prohibit the sale. distribution or use of the same pending investigation. Under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 27. if the investigation is not completed within the period of 60 days the n the prohibition in question could be extended for such further period not exceeding 30 days in the aggregate. Undersubsection(2) if the Central Government on the basis of its own investigation or on receipt of the report from the state Government and after consultation with the Registration Committee is satisfied that the use of the said insecticide or batch is or is not likely to cause any such risk the n it may pass such order as it deems fit depending upon the circumstances of the case. either refusing to register the insecticide or cancel the Certificate of Registration. If already granted. The use of the word said insecticide insubsection(2) obviously refers t o the insecticide in question which was the subject matter of consideration undersubsection(1) and in respect of which pending further investigation into the matter the Central Government has already issued a prohibition for sale, distribution or use of the insecticide in question. Therefore , the power of cancellation of Certificate of Registration conferred upon the Central Government undersubsection(2) of Section 27 can be exercised only in respect of any insecticide specified ine (iii) of clause (e) of section 3 i.e. a preparation or formulation of one or more of the substances specified in the schedule but the said power cannot be exercised in respect of an insecticide which is specified in the schedule itself by the Parliament. We are unable to accept the agreements advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General thatsubsection(2) of section 27 is not restricted to an insecticide in respect of which the Central Government has already issued a notification prohibiting the sale. distribution or use pending investigation into the matter. The Scheme ofsubsection(1) andsubsection(2) of section 27 is that in respect of a formulation which is also an insecticide within the meaning of section 3 (e) (iii) the Central Government for reasons to be recorded in writing and pending investigation into the matter can immediately prohibit sale. distribution or use and after further investigation can cancel the Certificate of Registration in respect the reof undersubsection(2) of Section 27. That being the position in exercise of such power under subsection (2) of section 27 a certificate of Registration in respect of an insecticide undersubsection3(e) (i) cannot be cancelled undersubsection(2) of section 27. This is also in consonance with the logic that an insecticide which is the formulation of any one or more of the substances specified in the schedule and is consumer oriented power of cancellation of registration certainly has been conferred upon the central Government but in respect of an insecticide which does not come to a consumer and is a substance specified in the schedule itself and therefore an insecticide under section 3(e) (i), the power has not been conferred upon the Central Government since the specified substance in the schedule has been specified by the Parliament itself. In view of the aforesaid conclusion of ours we would h old that those of the Certificates of Registration granted to the petitioner in respect of any formulations namely BHC 10% WP, the order of the Central Government cancelling Certificate of Registration is well within the jurisdiction and the re is no legal infirmity in the same. But in respect of Benzene Hexachloride which is one of the substances specified in the schedule and as such is an insecticide within the meaning of section 3 (e)(i) the re is no power with the Central Government under subsection (2) of section 27 to cancel the Certificate of Registration.So far as the contention of Mr. Vaidyanathan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in the transferred case that consultation with the Registration committee is an for exercise of power undersubsection(2) and such consultation being not the re. the issuance of notification is bad we are of the considered opinion that undoubtedly before the power undersubsection(2) of section 27 can be exercised the central Government is duty bound to have consultation with the Registration Committee. But in the case in hand having examined thes filed on behalf of the different Ministries of the Central Government that the re has been due and substantial consultation with the Registration Committee which is apparent in the notification of December 1994 itself. and since the n the re has been further study into the matter and committees of experts have been constituted who have gone into the matter and on the basis of the reports submitted by such expert committee ultimately the Central Government has taken the final decision. It is not possible for us to hold that the re has been no consultation with the Registration Committee before exercising of power under subsection (2) of section 27. Contention of Mr. Vaidyanathan. the learned senior counsel on this score. There for, must be rejected. Before we part with this case. and having examined the different provisions of the Insecticides Act. 1968 we find that once a substance is specified in the schedule as contemplated under Section 3(e)(i) the n the re is no power for cancelling the registration certificate issued in respect of the same substance even if on scientific study it appears that the substance in question is grossly detrimental to the human health. This is a lacuna in the legislation itself. and therefore , steps should be taken for appropriate amendment to the legislation.