LPA 215/2023 Page 1 of 43

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 20 February 2026

Pronounced on: 29 May 2026

+ LPA 215/2023 & CM APPLs. 15489/2023 & 74892/2025

DHANUKA AGRITECH LTD. ....Appellant

Through: Ms. Shoba Ramamoorthy, Mr.

Ankit Virmani and Ms. Devanshi Sharma,

Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH

THE SECRETARY & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Adv.,

Mr. Nishant Gautam CGSC, Ms. Kavya

Shukla, Mr. Vineet Negi., Mr. Naman

Sharma, Ms. Theresa, Mr. Vibhav V. Nath

Advs. for UOI

Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Gaurav Barathi, and Mr. Harsh Gupta, Advs.

for R-4

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

% JUDGMENT

29.05.2026

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

A. The lis

1. Consequent to a decision taken in the 349

th

meeting of the

Registration Committee

1

on 9 July 2014, the Directorate of Plant

1

“RC” hereinafter

LPA 215/2023 Page 2 of 43

Protection, Quarantine and Storage

2

granted registration to the

appellant, under Section 9(3)

3

of the Insecticides Act

4

, 1968, for

import of Halosulfuron Methyl

5

75% WG

6

, manufactured by M/s

Nissan Chemical Industries Ltd, Tokyo, Japan and supplied by M/s

Nissei Corporation, Tokyo Japan. The HSM 75% imported by the

appellant is sold by it, in the market, under the trade name “Sempra”.

2. Prior thereto, in 2011, Crystal Crop Protection Ltd

7

applied, in

terms of the “Guidelines for Import of Sample Quantity of Pesticides

for Research, Test and Trial (RTT)

8

Purposes”, approved by the RC in

its 148

th

meeting held on 11 November 1994, 245

th

meeting held on 2

July 2004 and 329

th

meeting held on 8 June 2012, which read thus:

“GUIDELINES FOR IMPORT OF SAMPLE QUANTITY OF

PESTICIDES FOR RESEARCH, TEST AND TRIAL (RTT)

PURPOSES

(As approved by Registration committee in its 148

th

meeting held on 11.11.1994, 245

th

meeting held on

2.7.2004 and 329

th

meeting held on 8.6.2012)

2

“the DPPQS” hereinafter

3

9. Registration of insecticides –

(3) On receipt of any such application for the registration of an insecticide, the Committee

may, after such enquiry as it deems fit and after satisfying itself that the insecticide to which the

application relates conforms to the claims made by the importer or by the manufacturer, as the case

may be, as regards the efficacy of the insecticide and its safety to human beings and animals,

register, on such conditions as may be specified by it and on payment of such fee as may be

prescribed, the insecticide, allot a registration number thereto and issue a certificate of registration

in token thereof within a period of twelve months from the date of receipt of the application:

Provided that the Committee may, if it is unable within the said period to arrive at a

decision on the basis of the materials placed before it, extend the period by a further period not

exceeding six months:

Provided further that if the Committee is of opinion that the precautions claimed by the

applicant as being sufficient to ensure safety to human beings or animals are not such as can be

easily observed or that notwithstanding the observance of such precautions the use of the

insecticide involves serious risk to human beings or animals, it may refuse to register the

insecticide.

4

“the Act” hereinafter

5

“HSM” hereinafter

6

“Water Dispersible Granules”

7

“CCPL” hereinafter

8

“RTT” hereinafter

LPA 215/2023 Page 3 of 43

I. Permission for import of sample quantity of pesticides may

be given by Secretary, CIB&RC for all cases except the following:

i. Pesticides falling under Red Colour toxicity triangle

i.e. extremely toxic category (LD50 value is more than 50

mg/kg body weight).

ii. Coded compounds which are not registered in any

country and do not figure in pesticides manual.

II. Permission issued by Secretary CIB&RC should be brought

to RC for ex-post- facto approval.

III. Documents Requirements for seeking RTT Import permit:

1. Complete Form C (Copy attached).

2. Technical bulletin from inventor/manufacturer.

3. Information on Chemistry, toxicity and bio-efficacy.

4. Justification for quantity.

5. Authenticated copy of the Registration Certificate

for manufacture of particular molecule/pesticide in that

country, issued from the Registration Authority.

6. Authorization for supplier in case of sample

quantity is not supplied by the Manufacturer.

7. For coded & non-registered pesticides authentic

document from the Inventor.”

3. Consequent thereupon, CCPL was granted an RTT Permit for

importing a sample of Halosulfuron Methyl Technical

9

98% w/w

minimum, from Fertiagro, Singapore. The Permit was granted for the

purpose of generating data to be submitted in future for obtaining

registration for importation of HSMT.

9

“HSMT” hereinafter

LPA 215/2023 Page 4 of 43

4. On 11 April 2016, CCPL filed an application under Section 9(3)

of the Act for registration for HSMT 98% min. for permission to

import the product for formulation indigenous manufacture of HSM

75% WG. The application was filed as a “TI – new source”

application. The manufacturer was declared as Jiangsu and the

supplier as Hebei Bestar Commerce & Trade Co. Ltd

10

, Shijiazhuang,

China. The application declared that the manufacture of HSMT 98%

min by Jiangsu had been authorized by the Institute for the Control of

Agrochemicals, Ministry of Agriculture

11

, China and that HSMT 98%

min was registered in China. It was further declared that Jiangsu held

Registration No. PD20132005 issued by the ICAMA for manufacture

of HSMT 98% min, valid till 11 October 2023.

5. CCPL’s application for permission to import HSMT 98% min

was considered by the RC constituted in terms of Section 5(1)

12

of the

Act in its 429

th

Meeting held on 24, 28 and 30 June 2021. The RC

noted that there was a difference in the source of the HSMT 98% for

which CCPL had been granted RTT Permit, which was Fertiagro,

Singapore, and the source of manufacture of the HSMT 98% min as

declared in the Section 9(3) application dated 11 April 2016, which

was Jiangsu. It was decided that CCPL be asked to explain this

discrepancy in the next meeting of the RC.

10

“Hebei” hereinafter

11

“ICAMA” hereinafter

12

5. Registration Committee.—

(1) The Central Government shall constitute a Registration Committee consisting of a

Chairman, and not more than five persons who shall be members of the Board (including the Drugs

Controller, India and the Plant Protection Adviser to the Government of India)—

(i) to register insecticides after scrutinising their formulae and verifying claims

made by the importer or the manufacturer, as the case may be, as regards their efficacy

and safety to human beings and animals; and

(ii) to perform such other functions as are assigned to it by or under this Act.

LPA 215/2023 Page 5 of 43

6. On 16 July 2021, the appellant addressed a detailed

representation objecting to the application of CCPL for registration of

HSMT 98% min as TI (New Source) and HSM 75% WG as FIM v.

FI, under Section 9(3) of the Act. It was pointed out that the

applications claimed equivalence with the appellant’s registered HSM

and that, therefore, any adverse effect of the product which CCPL

desired to import or indigenously manufacture would directly affect

the appellant as well as the credibility of the HSM molecule itself.

Moreover, submitted the appellant, an untested insecticide could have

widespread adverse effects on public health, safety and the

environment. Expressing alarm at the discrepancy between the source

of import of the HSMT in the Section 9(3) application of CCPL and

the source of import of the HSMT imported under the RTT Permit, the

appellant pointed out that the result was that CCPL had generated data

relating to toxicity and bioefficacy, among other things, of the HSMT

manufactured at one source and was seeking to use the said data to

justify import from another source under Section 9(3) of the Act.

Import registration, submitted the appellant, was source-specific, and

it was but natural that the same product manufactured at different

facilities would have differences, even in respect of purity profile.

This, in turn, could significantly impact the toxicity of the product.

The data generated by a Section 9(3) applicant, on the basis of which

he sought registration, had to be on the product manufactured at the

source from which the applicant desired to import the insecticide. It

was for this reason, submitted the appellant, that the RC, in its 325

th

Meeting on 4 January 2012, required an endorsement of additional

manufacturing site with five batch analytical data from both

LPA 215/2023 Page 6 of 43

manufacturing sites. Accordingly, the appellant requested that the

Section 9(3) applications of CCPL be rejected.

7. In this context, it is relevant to mention that, in its 325

th

Meeting held on 4 January 2012, the RC accepted the

recommendation of the Expert Committee regarding the protocol to be

followed in the event of inclusion, in the registration for import of

insecticides under Section 9(3), of an additional manufacturing site of

the imported insecticides, for incorporation of the following

guidelines:

“(i) The site, proposed to be additional manufacturing site,

should belong to the same registrant (it is not allowed on anyone

else's premises, whatsoever);

(ii) the registrant should have registration for manufacture of

the same insecticide/product in the country where the additional

site is located;

(iii) Letter of consent from already approved source and from

new manufacturing site duly certified by the Designated National

Authority (DNA), which shall be verifiable by the DNA of India:

(iv) Additional declaration from already approved

source/principals as well as from new manufacturing site with

respect to the formulation being made by using technical same raw

material & process from the source which is already approved by

the RC in India;

(v) all operations involved in the manufacturing of the

insecticide for which the additional site is being considered should

be fully operated by the same. registrant and have the proof of

manufacturing there by submitting an undertaking to this effect,

duly certified by the DNA of that country;

(vi) the registrant shall be responsible for manufacturing the

product having identical chemical composition and specifications

as that of the original registered source of the product;

LPA 215/2023 Page 7 of 43

(vii) five batch analytical test report shall be submitted along

with the application for the five batches manufactured at the source

originally registered and the five batches manufactured at the

proposed additional source;

(viii) samples of all the five batch manufactured at the source

originally registered and all the five batches manufactured at the

proposed additional source shall be submitted along with the

respective reference standards to the Sectt of CIB & RC for testing

at CIL for verification;

(ix) the samples and the reference standards should be valid at

least for a period of six month from the date of delivery to the Sectt

of CIB & RC;

(x) documents supporting the claim of the registrant about the

additional manufacturing site, duly certified by the Designated

National Authority (like. ICAMA for China), shall be submitted

along with the application, which shall in turn be verified by the

DNA of India before considering the endorsement;

(xi) intimation about the import of every consignment,

proposed to be imported from the additional manufacturing site,

shall be given to the Sectt of CIB along with the name of the port

of entry into India and expected date of arrival as soon as the

consignment is dispatched from the additional manufacturing site

for arranging the testing of sample(s), if so considered necessary;

(xii) Justification for approval of additional manufacturing site; and

(xiii) failure to meeting any of the above mentioned criteria shall

unconditionally empower the Registration Committee to reject

application for such endorsement; or endorsement, if already

granted.”

8. The explanation proffered by CCPL for the difference in the

source of manufacture of the HSMT between the source reflected in

the RTT permit and the source declared in its Section 9(3) application

dated 11 April 2016 was considered in Agenda Item 2.1 of the 430

th

meeting of the RC, held on 23 July 2021, which read thus:

2.1 Presentation by M/s Crystal Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd., for

grant of registration for indigenous manufacture of

LPA 215/2023 Page 8 of 43

Halosulfuron methyl 75% WG u/s 9(3) FIM vs FI and for

technical import of Halosulfuron methyl technical 98%

w/w min. u/s 9(3).

The presentation was made by the applicant and

submitted the following details:-

1. That they have procured RTT permit for import of

Halosulfuron-Methyl Technical from M/s Fertisgro Ptv

Ltd., 30 Toh Guan Road, #07-06 ODC Districcentre,

Singapore 608 840. Subsequently, the technical Grade

Sample was imported from M/s Fertiagro Pvt. Ltd. The

data for all the disciplines was generated using the said

sample. They also informed that technical grade material

supplied to them by M/s Fertiagro was actually

manufactured by M/s Jiangsu Agrochem Laboratory Co.

ltd., Minjian Road, Hi-tech Zone of Changzhou, Jiangsu,

China with whom they had an exclusive business

agreement for manufacturing and supply of the product.

2. Submitted all the required data in each discipline

according to the guidelines of TI -New Source.

3. Filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Appellate

Authority vide appeal no. 15 & 12 of 2020 and after

hearing case the Appellate authority noted that all

scientific facts and complete data according to the

existing guidelines of TI-New Source have been given

and passed the order vide F. No. 13031/12/2020/PP-1

dated 02/12/2020.

4. Appellate authority was also satisfied, and hence

directed the RC to duly consider the application of

Technical of the Product HALOSULFURON TECH 98%

Min for import from another new source.

5. Further informed that Registration Committee in

its 369th Meeting held on 04.10.2016, vide Agenda Item

No. 2.2 taken decision that "The committee further

decided that no application with the data generated using

unauthorized sample (without obtaining RTT permit)

shall be accepted/processed on or after 01/01/2017. It was

also decided that if any studies of any product under any

category is undergoing with such samples, the same may

be intimated to the APPA & Secretary (CIB&RC) by

30/11/2016 through email at cibsecy@nic.in. A Public

Notice to this effect was also issued".

6. Applicant appraised that they submitted a letter to

LPA 215/2023 Page 9 of 43

Secretary CIB&RC on 03/11/2016 (within the deadline

indicated) informing the reason and change in the name

of source import.

7. It was also noticed that applicant submitted the

dossier with revised Form 1 dated 11.4.2016 received in

CIBRC Secretariat on 22.4.2016 where the applicant

indicated original manufacturer Jiangsu Agrochem Lab

Co. Ltd.

RC deliberated the agenda and after consideration of

point number 5 of 369th RC and also point number 6 and

7, found that this case qualifies for registration u/s 9(3).

Accordingly granted for registration for indigenous

manufacture of Halosulfuron methyl 75% WG for control

of Cyperus rotundus on Sugarcane; Cyperus rotundus

Cyperus iria on Maize and Cyperus rotundus, Cyperus

iria on Bottle Gourd in the category FIM vs FI and for

technical import of Halosulfuron methyl technical 98%

w/w min. manufactured by M/s Jiangsu Agrochem

Laboratory Co. Ltd., Minjiang Road, Hi-tech Zone of

Changzhou, Jingsu, China through supplier M/s Hebei

Bestar commerce and Trade Co. Ltd., No. 6-3-203, No.

66, Dianda Street Xinhua District Shijiazhuang, China

with validity 11.10.2023.

Thus, the RC decided, after examining the presentation and

explanation proffered by CCPL for the difference in the source of the

HSMT between the RTT sample and the product for which import

registration was sought, to grant registration, to CCPL, both for

indigenous manufacture of HSM 75% WG in the FIM v. FI

13

category

and for Technical Import of HSMT 98% w/w min, manufactured by

Jiangsu and supplied by Hebei.

9. At this juncture, it would be relevant to reproduce the

Guidelines issued by the RC governing FIM v. FI category imports, in

13

Formulation Indigenous Manufacture v Formulation Import

LPA 215/2023 Page 10 of 43

exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5(5)

14

of the Act read

with Rule 4(b)

15

of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, thus:

Guidelines applicable to FIM v. FI imports as approved in 315

th

meeting of the RC held on 22 February 2011

“The Guidelines for the category of FIM Vs. Fl are as under:-

(a) For registration of pesticide formulation for

indigenous manufacture having the identical chemical

composition that of formulation already registered for

import U/s.9(3).

No data is required provided the technical of the

source to be used in formulation is duly registered

as per guidelines of the Registration Committee and

the label claims are same.

(b) For registration of pesticide formulation for

indigenous manufacture having the different chemical

composition that of formulation already registered for

import U/s.9(3).

Complete data to be submitted as per already

existing guidelines for formulation indigenous

manufacture (FIM) U/s. 9(3) provided the technical

(source) to be used for making formulation is duly

registered as per guidelines of the Registration

Committee.”

10. In the 431

st

RC meeting held on 27 August 2021, vide Agenda

Item No. 1.0, the minutes of the 430

th

RC meeting were confirmed

with a modification in Agenda Item 2.1 by inserting a final paragraph

which read:

14

(5) The Registration Committee shall regulate its own procedure and the conduct of business to be

transacted by it.

15

4. Functions of Registration Committee.—The Registration Committee shall, in addition to the functions

assigned to it by the Act, perform the following functions, namely:—

*****

(b) carry out such other incidental or consequential matters necessary for carrying out the

functions assigned to it under the Act or these rules.

LPA 215/2023 Page 11 of 43

“An affidavit on NJSP should be submitted to support the

requirement of an agreement between M/s Fertiagro Pvt Ltd, 30

Toh Guan Road, #07-06 ODC Districcentre, Singapore 608 840

and M/s Jiangsu Agrochem Laboratory Co. Ltd, Minjian Road, Hi-

tech Zone of Changzhou, Jingisan China to establish the linkage

for using the same technology and same manufacturing process as

was used for supply of RTT sample.”

11. CCPL, in terms of the above directions, filed an affidavit dated

8 September 2021 with the RC enclosing, therewith, the following

letter dated 10 August 2021 issued by Jiangsu:

“We, JIANGSU AGROCHEM LABORATORY CO. LTD. ADD

:Minjiang Road. Hi-tech Zone of Changzhou, Jiangsu, China,

hereby confirm the following:

1. Jiangsu Agrochem Laboratory Co., Ltd, established in Apr

1999, located in National High-tech Industrial Development Zone

of Changzhou, Jiangsu Province, is the Provincial Engineering

Center as well as Provincial Hi-tech Enterprise approved by the

Provincial Council of Science and Technology.

2. It's been listed as development base of herbicides with high

efficiency by Ministry of Science and Technology of P.R.C.

3. We further confirm that we hold valid registration of

Halosulfuron Methyl Technical min issued by INSTITUTE OF

THE CONTROL OF AGROCHEMICALS,’ Ministry of

Agriculture (ICAMA) having registration reference number

PD20132005. We had received this registration first time in the

year 2013. We had received a temporary registration from ICAMA

in 2011 vide registration number LS20110312. A copy of the same

is also enclosed and can be found on ICAMA website.

4. We further confirm that we are the only manufacturer who

has a valid ICAMA for Halosulfuron Methyl Technical in China.

5. We also confirm that we are the only legal manufacturer of

Halosulfuron Methyl Technical 98% min in China. Our latest

manufacturing license number is 0086 issued by Department of

Agriculture and Rural Development of Jiangsu Province dated 03

April 2018. We are producing this product in China since the year

2011.

LPA 215/2023 Page 12 of 43

6. We also confirm that we had provided technical grade

sample to M/s, Fertiagro Pte, Singapore between 2010-2014. The

purpose of the sample was to support registration in India for our

customer M/s. Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. (Earlier known as

Crystal Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd.). We later sent tech grade

samples to Crystal directly also for registration related purposes.”

12. On 6 August 2021, the appellant submitted a petition,

purportedly under Sections 10

16

and 11

17

of the Act, challenging the

grant of registration to CCPL for import and indigenous manufacture

of HSMT/HSM WG. The appellant submitted that registration had

been granted to CCPL without any verification of its claim that the

RTT sample had been manufactured by Jiangsu. Import of pesticide

for indigenous use, or for use in indigenous manufacture of pesticide,

from a source other than that from which the sample in respect of

which the test data had been provided by the Section 9(3) applicant, it

was submitted, was not permissible.

13. By order dated 10 September 2021, the Joint Secretary (Plant

Protection), in his capacity of Revisionary Authority, rejected the

petition submitted by the appellant. The Revisionary Authority held

the petition not to be maintainable as an appeal under Section 10 and

16

10. Appeal against non-registration or cancellation.—Any person aggrieved by a decision of the

Registration Committee under Section 9 may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the

decision is communicated to him, appeal in the prescribed manner and on payment of the prescribed fee to

the Central Government whose decision thereon shall be final:

Provided that the Central Government may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period, if

it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

17

11. Power of revision of Central Government.— The Central Government may, at any time, call for

the record relating to any case in which the Registration Committee has given a decision under Section 9 for

the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision and may pass any such

order in relation thereto as it thinks fit:

Provided that no such order shall be passed after the expiry of one year from the date of the

decision:

Provided further that the Central Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any person

unless that person has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed order.

LPA 215/2023 Page 13 of 43

rejected it on merits under Section 11. The reasoning and conclusion

in the said order dated 10 September 2021 read thus:

“Now after going through the contents of the appeal/revision

petition and after hearing the oral and written submissions

advanced by the respective parties, I am of the view that as far as

maintainability of the appeal is concerned, Section 10 of the Act

deals with 'Appeal against non-registration or cancellation' and that

legal remedy in this case is circumscribed by condition of non-

registration or cancellation. The contention raised by the

appellant/revisionist pertains to the grant of registration of

Halosulfuron methyl Technical 98% min to the respondent No 2

(third party) and that, it the grant of registration that has been

challenged and not the non-registration or cancellation and

therefore does not fall in the ambit of the Section 10 of the Act.

Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.

Further, as far as power of revision of Central Government

as envisaged in Section 11 of the Insecticides Act, in the instant

case, appellant/ revisionist has not provided any documentary

evidence to prove that decision of RC is perverse or mala fide and

that respondents have not followed the guidelines issued by

CIBRC or has not completed the process of registration with

respect to submission of data for evaluation of safety and efficacy

of the product in question. Therefore, I am of the view that,

revision petition is not maintainable.

In view of the above, I further observe that according to the

minutes of 430th RC meeting, Registration Committee after

reviewing all the facts and information as per guidelines, had fully

satisfied itself with regard to the data submitted by the applicant

before granting the approval for registration for import of

Halosulfuron Technical 98% min from the said source. Thus, I am

of the view that the decision given by the RC is justified and

require no interference from this appellate authority.”

14. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached this Court by

means of WP (C) 10776/2021, which stands dismissed by a learned

Single Judge of this Court.

15. This appeal challenges the said decision.

LPA 215/2023 Page 14 of 43

B. The Impugned Judgment

I. Rival Contentions

IA Contentions of the appellant

16. The appellant submitted, before the learned Single Judge, that

Jiangsu had been granted registration, by the registering authorities in

China, for manufacture of 98% HSM only on 11 October 2018 and

that, therefore, CCPL could not have declared Jiangsu to be its source

of manufacture of the HSMT in 2016. Besides, the Guidelines issued

by the RC required that, if the manufacturer of the imported pesticide,

and the supplier from whom it was being sourced, were different, both

names had to figure on the RTT Permit, which had not been complied

with. Inviting attention to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the

Act, the appellant submitted that there had been complete abdication,

by the RC, of its duty under Section 9(3).

17. In such circumstances, the appellant submitted that the

appeal/revision petition preferred by it before the Revisionary

Authority was maintainable and that the words “person aggrieved”, as

employed in Section 10 of the Act were required to be widely

construed, keeping in mind the Statement of Objects and Reasons of

the Act and considerations of larger public interest. Public interest, it

was submitted, would irremediably jeopardised if CCPL were to be

permitted to import pesticide from an untested source. Use of such

pesticides could jeopardise the life and safety of humans and animals

LPA 215/2023 Page 15 of 43

and also adversely impact the environment. It was imperative,

therefore, that the import, under Section 9(3), took place from the

same source from which the sample, which was earlier tested and with

respect to which data was generated, was manufactured. The appellant

submitted that the affidavit of CCPL, as was directed to be filed in the

431

st

RC Meeting, would not be any panacea, as it would obviously be

self-serving in nature.

18. In so far as appellant’s locus was concerned, it was further

submitted that, as, while applying for registration of HSM under the

“TI (new source)” category, equivalence had been claimed, by CCPL,

with the HSM earlier imported by the appellant. As such, if the HSMT

imported by CCPL did not function properly, or caused any adverse

effects, it would damage the appellant’s reputation and also jeopardise

the reputation of the HSM molecule itself. In support of its contention

that it possessed locus, the appellant placed reliance on the judgments

of the Supreme Court in Coal India Ltd v. Ananta Saha

18

, Samir

Agrawal v. Competition Commission of India

19

and Honnaiah T.H.

v. State of Karnataka

20

.

IB. Contentions of CCPL

19. CCPL submitted, by way of response, that the challenge, by the

appellant, to the grant of registration to CCPL under Section 9(3) of

the Act was lacking in bona fides, and that the appellant wanted to

perpetrate its monopoly with respect to import of HSM. In any event,

18

(2011) 5 SCC 142

19

(2021) 3 SCC 136

20

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1001

LPA 215/2023 Page 16 of 43

submitted CCPL, the appellant had no locus standi to maintain its

challenge, and was merely a meddlesome interloper. The appellant’s

revision petition/appeal was not maintainable under Section 10 of the

Act, as a challenge, under the said provision, lay only against a

decision refusing registration or cancelling a registration and not

against grant of a registration. The appellant, it was submitted, could

not be said to be a “person aggrieved”, as the appellant was not

affected by grant of registration to CCPL.

20. Besides, submitted CCPL, registration had been granted to

CCPL after complete scrutiny of its application, which was containing

all requesite details for the period 2016 to 2021. Such a decision, it

was submitted, would ordinarily not be subject to judicial review.

21. To support its contentions, CCPL relied on the judgments of the

Supreme Court in Uflex Ltd v. Government of Tamil Nadu

21

and

Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar

22

and the judgments of

this Court in Syngenta India Ltd v. Union of India

23

and Gharda

Chemicals Ltd v. Joint Secretary

24

.

II. Analysis by the learned Single Judge

22. The learned Single Judge, at the outset, identified the bone of

contention, before him, as being the legality of the registration granted

21

2021 SCC OnLine SC 861

22

(1976) 1 SCC 671

23

2009 SCC OnLine Del 1724

24

Judgment dated 26 October 2018 in WP (C) 11542/2018

LPA 215/2023 Page 17 of 43

to CCPL by the RC in its 430

th

meeting, for import and manufacture

of HSMT.

23. The learned Single Judge reasoned as under:

“22. Perusal of the record reveals that Jiangsu, China was the

authorized manufacturer of Halosulfuron Methyl Technical 98 %

min since 2011. In the year, 2011, Jiangsu, China had received a

temporary registration of Halosulfuron Methyl Technical 98 %

from ICAMA vide registration number LS2011031. The said

registration of Jiangsu for Halosulfuron Methyl Technical 98 %

min was subsequently granted permanent registration number by

ICAMA in the year 2013 vide registration number PD20132005.

Perusal of the record further reveals that an Agreement dated

08.12.2010 was executed between M/s Jiangsu Agrochem

Laboratory Co. Ltd. and M/s. Fertiagro Pte Ltd. for supply of

material. It was agreed between the parties that since M/s Fertiagro

Pte Ltd. had a good distribution network, and M/s Jiangsu

Agrochem Laboratory Co. Ltd. being a manufacturer of agro-

chemicals, the latter would supply the goods to M/s Fertiagro Pte

Ltd. for further sale as its distributor/agent. It was agreed that M/s.

Fertiagro Pte Ltd. may send the product to its customers for

registration in respective territory and in case the product is

registered in respective country, M/s Jiangsu Agrochem

Laboratory Co. Ltd. shall continue to supply product through M/s

Fertiagro Pte Ltd.

23. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner further contended

that Respondent no. 4 failed to comply with the guidelines

provided by the RC which mandates that in case the manufacturer

was different from supplier, the details of both were required to be

mentioned on the RTT Permit. Perusal of the file reveals that the

new guidelines came into effect vide 329

th

RC Meeting held on

08.06.2012; whereas the RTT permit to Respondent No. 4 was

issued in the year 2011. Hence Respondent No. 4 applied for the

RTT permit as per the old guidelines in which there was no such

requirement. Further, perusal of the record reveals that the

Registration Committee in its 369

th

Meeting held on 04.10.2016,

vide Agenda Item No. 2.2 took a decision that ‘no application with

the data generated using unauthorized sample (without obtaining

RTT permit) shall be accepted/processed on or after 01/01/2017. It

was also decided that if any studies of any product under any

category is undergoing with such samples, the same may be

intimated to the APPA & Secretary (CIB&RC) by 30/11/2016

LPA 215/2023 Page 18 of 43

through email at cibsecy@nic.in. A Public Notice to this effect was

also issued’. Taking benefit of the said decision, Respondent No. 4

vide letter dated 03.11.2016 appraised the Secretary CIB & RC of

the reason and change in the name of source import. Respondent

No. 4 further submitted a dossier with revised Form 1 dated

11.04.2016 in which Respondent No. 4 indicated the original

manufacturer as M/s Jiangsu Agrochem Laboratory Co. Ltd.

24. This Court has examined the minutes of 430

th

meeting of

the RC wherein the RC has recorded the history of the dossiers and

other relevant data submitted by Respondent no. 4. The relevant

portions of the said RC Meeting, reads, inter alia, as follows

25

:

*****

25. Apart from that, Respondent no. 4 has submitted before the

RC time and again such documentary evidences to establish link

between the M/s Fertiagro, Singapore and M/s Jiangsu Agrochem

Laboratory, China.

26. This Court also finds that the RC vide item No. 1.0 of its

431

st

meeting dated 27.08.2021 directed Respondent no. 4 to

submit an affidavit to support the requirement of an agreement

between Fertiagro and Jiangsu to establish the linkage for using the

same technology and same manufacturing process as was used for

supply of RTT sample. In view of the same, Respondent no. 4

submitted the requisite affidavit before the RC along with relevant

documents which includes a letter dated 10.08.2021 from M/s

Jiangsu Agrochem Laboratory Company Ltd. The said Letter,

reads, inter alia, as follows

26

:

*****

27. Upon perusal of these documents, it is amply conveyed that

RC had sufficient material before it to satisfy itself with respect to

the claims made by Respondent no. 4.

28. At this point, it is relevant to refer to the provision under

Section 9(3) of the Act. It is reproduced as follows:

“(3) On receipt of any such application for the

registration of an insecticide, the Committee may, after

such enquiry as it deems fit and after satisfying itself that

the insecticide to which the application relates conforms to

the claims made by the importer or by the manufacturer, as

the case may be, as regards the efficacy of the insecticide

25

Already extracted in para 8 supra

26

Already reproduced in para 11 supra

LPA 215/2023 Page 19 of 43

and its safety to human beings and animals, register [on

such conditions as may be specified by it] and on payment

of such fee as may be prescribed, the insecticide, allot a

registration number thereto and issue a certificate of

registration in token thereof within a period of twelve

months from the date of receipt of the application:

Provided that the Committee may, if it is unable

within the said period to arrive at a decision on the basis of

the materials placed before it, extend the period by a further

period not exceeding six months:

Provided further that if the Committee is of opinion

that the precautions claimed by the applicant as being

sufficient to ensure safety to human beings or animals are

not such as can be easily observed or that notwithstanding

the observance of such precautions the use of the

insecticide involves serious risk to human beings or

animals, it may refuse to register the insecticide.”

29. On the bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is cogent

that liberty/discretion has been granted to the RC to conduct its

affair or enquiry as it deems fit for ascertaining the claims of the

applicant.

30. While examining the decision of an expert quasi-judicial

body under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court

is concerned only to the limited extent whether the said authority

has applied its mind and satisfied itself with help of relevant data,

so that no room is left for arbitrariness. This Court is convinced

that RC indeed took all the possible steps to check the veracity of

the registration application and mindfully granted registration

under the statute.

31. The Petitioner has not brought on record any documentary

evidence to prove that the decision of RC suffers from irregularity

or that it has proceeded arbitrarily while satisfying itself with

respect to efficacy and safety of the product in question. RC is a

body of experts comprising of experts from various fields. RC

comprises of authority such as Drugs Controller of India and the

Plant Protection Advisor to the Government of India etc. The

Court cannot interfere with the decisions taken by the RC by

exercising power of judicial review unless and until it suffers from

patent irregularity. Same observations were made by co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in Crop Care Federation of India v. UOI in

W.P. (C) 8117/2019 decided on 29.07.2019.

LPA 215/2023 Page 20 of 43

32. As far as maintainability of the appeal under Section 10 of

the Act is concerned, it is explicitly provided in the provision that

only a ‘person aggrieved’ can prefer an appeal against the decision

of the RC. The present case is squarely covered by the order

passed by the coordinate Bench of this court in Gharda

Chemicals (supra) wherein the petitioner who happened to be a

competitor of the Respondent, filed a writ petition against the grant

of registration to the Respondent under the Act. Relevant portion

of the aforesaid order is as follow:

“10. This Court is unable to accept that the petitioner has

any vested right to insist that respondent nos 4 and 5's

applications be considered as per any particular guidelines,

and the same requires to be protected by this court by

issuing a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. Concededly, the applications filed by the petitioner

for registration of insecticides has been processed and the

petitioner now seeks to challenge the processing of

applications of its competitors (respondent nos. 4 and 5).

Plainly, the provisions of Article 226 cannot be permitted

to be used for settling business rivalries, which appears to

be the object of the present petition.

11. In Nagar Rice & Flour Mills v. N Teekappa

Gowda & Bros

27

, the Supreme Court held that a rice mill

owner had no locus standi to challenge setting up of a new

rice mill by another, under Article 226, even if the same

was in contravention of section 8(3)(c) of the Rice Milling

Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958. The Court reasoned that

no right vested in such an applicant was infringed. This

decision was also followed by the Supreme Court in a later

decision in Mithilesh garg v. Union of India

28

, wherein the

court repelled the challenge of existing stage carriage

operators to the decision of the Regional Transport

Authority to issue permits to new operators.

12. In Simbhaoli Sugar Mills v. Union of India

29

a

Division Bench of this court rejected the challenge to a

press note containing guidelines for issuance of licences for

setting up new and expansion of existing sugar factories. In

terms of the said guidelines, licence to set up a new unit

could be granted subject to certain conditions, one of them

being that there was no sugar mill within a radius of fifteen

kilometres and the applicant was not required to furnish

27

(1970) 1 SCC 575

28

(1992) 1 SCC 168

29

(1992) 22 DRJ 594

LPA 215/2023 Page 21 of 43

any certificate/clearance regarding cane availability or

potential for development of cane. The petitioner before the

court was an existing manufacturer and had challenged the

issue of licence to another unit (respondent no. 5 therein)

processed under the guidelines. The court held that the

petitioner had “no locus standi to invoke the special

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”

and rejected the petition.”

33. It is a well-settled principle that Article 226 of

the Constitution cannot become a means to chase down a business

rival by pinpointing procedural deficiency in decision making

process. This extraordinary power can only be invoked when there

appears a glaring error and arbitrariness in decision making

process of the body. Competition between enterprises cannot be a

cause of action in any case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court touched

upon the issue of locus standi in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai

case (supra):

“47. Thus, in substance, the appellant's stand is that the

setting up of a rival cinema house in the town will

adversely affect his monopolistic commercial interest,

causing pecuniary harm and loss of business from

competition. Such harm or loss is not wrongful in the eye

of law, because it does not result in injury to a legal right or

a legally protected interest, the business competition

causing it being a lawful activity. Juridically, harm of this

description is called damnum sine injuria, the term injuria

being here used in its true sense of an act contrary to

law. [Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12

th

Edn. by Fitzgerald, p.

357, para 85] The reason why the law suffers a person

knowingly to inflict harm of this description on another,

without holding him accountable for it, is that such harm

done to an individual is a gain to society at large.

48. In the light of the above discussion, it is

demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been denied

or deprived of a legal right. He has not sustained injury to

any legally protected interest. In fact, the impugned order

does not operate as a decision against him, much less does

it wrongfully affect his title to something. He has not been

subjected to a legal wrong. He has suffered no legal

grievance. He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to

hang on. Therefore he is not a “person aggrieved” and has

no locus standi to challenge the grant of the no-objection

certificate.”

LPA 215/2023 Page 22 of 43

34. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the

RC has well-satisfied itself with regard to the bio-efficacy data and

other relevant documents provided by Respondent no. 4 to support

its case for registration under the Act.

35. This Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the impugned

order. No interference with the decision and order impugned in this

petition is warranted at the instance of the petitioner.”

C. Relevant Proceedings before this Court

24. On 1 October 2025, the UOI filed a Brief Note, annexing,

therewith, certain documents. In the said Note, it is stated, with

respect to the RTT Permit which had originally been issued to CCPL,

and with respect to Form C which had been submitted by CCPL for

obtaining the said RTT Permit, as under:

“30.3.2011

RTT issued to Respondent No. 4

The Form C requires the applicant to mention the name of the

source/manufacturer and supplier which in the present matter is

M/s Fertiagro Pvt Ltd, Singapore. The Respondent No. 4 mentioned

the manufacturer and supplier both as M/s Fertiagro Pvt Ltd,

Singapore.”

(Emphasis supplied)

25. During the course of these proceedings, the following order was

passed by this Court on 9 October 2025:

“1. Heard learned Counsels for the Parties in detail.

2. The Union of India i.e. the Respondent No.1 herein, is

directed to produce the relevant documents to demonstrate that M/s

Jiangsu Agrochem Laboratory Co. Ltd. had the temporary

Registration to manufacture Halosulfuron Methyl 98% weight-in-

weight (w/w) from Institute for the Control of Agrochemicals,

LPA 215/2023 Page 23 of 43

Ministry of Agriculture ("ICAMA") vide Registration No.

LS20110312 in the year 2011.

3. Though certain documents have also been given to show

that M/s Jiangsu Agrochem Laboratory Co. Ltd. had the license to

manufacture Halosulfuron Methyl at 95% w/w purity, liberty is

also given to the Respondents to satisfy the Court that a person

having a registration license for manufacturing Halosulfuron

Methyl at 95% w/w can also manufacture the same at 98% w/w.”

There has been no compliance, by the UOI, with the above directions.

26. Following this, the appellant filed CM 74892/2025, praying that

the present appeal be allowed, in view of (i) the disclosure, in the

Brief Note filed by the UOI on 1 October 2025, of the fact that, in the

Form C submitted by CCPL for obtaining the RTT Permit in 2011,

CCPL had mentioned Fertiagro as the manufacturer as well as the

supplier of the HSMT 98% sample, and (ii) the UOI had failed to

comply with the directions, in the order dated 9 October 2025, to

place documents on record to indicate that, in 2011, Jiangsu had the

registration to manufacture HSMT 98%.

D. Rival Contentions before us

I. Submissions of Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy for the appellant

27. Arguing for the appellant, Ms. Ramamoorthy submits as under:

(i) The impugned registrations, granted to CCPL, permitted

import of HSMT from an untested source. CCPL had, in 2011,

applied for grant of Registration Certificate for import of

LPA 215/2023 Page 24 of 43

sample for research, test and trial. Pursuant to the application,

RTT Permit was issued to CCPL for import of HSMT 98% w/w

from Fertiagro. It was the RTT Sample imported by CCPL

under the said registration which was subjected to trial and test,

and the data generated as a result of which was submitted by

CCPL to the RC for obtaining registration under Section 9(3) of

the Act. Having thus provided data following trial and test

conducted on a sample sourced from Fertiagro, CCPL applied,

under Section 9(3), for grant of registration for import and for

indigenous manufacture of HSM with a new manufacturer, i.e.

Jiangsu and sent by Hebei. After having, in its 429

th

Meeting

conducted on 24

th

June, 28

th

June and 30 June 2021, called upon

CCPL to explain, in the next Meeting of the RC, the

discrepancy between the source of the pesticide, the RC, in the

430

th

meeting conducted on 23 July 2021, blindly accepted the

explanation proffered by CCPL, without any proof or evidence.

All that the RC required of CCPL was the furnishing of an

affidavit, which was obviously self-serving in nature and would

not satisfy the requirement of a proper enquiry into the

discrepancy in source between the RTT Sample and the HSM

which was being proposed to be important and used in the

indigenous manufacture of HSM 75% WG. In fact, the very

calling upon CCPL, by the RC, to file an affidavit, in the 431

st

meeting of the RC on 27 August 2021, indicated that

registration had been granted to CCPL in the 430

th

meeting

without the RC satisfying itself regarding the veracity of the

explanation proffered by CCPL for the discrepancy in the

LPA 215/2023 Page 25 of 43

source of the HSMT between the RTT Sample and the imports

for which application had been made under Section 9(3). The

counter-affidavit filed by the official Respondents, too, did not

indicate any application of mind, by the RC, to the correctness

of the explanation proffered by CCPL in the 430

th

meeting for

the discrepancy in source of the imported HSMT between the

RTT Sample and the proposed Section 9(3) import.

(ii) Jiangsu had been granted registration, in China, for

manufacture of HSMT 98% only on 11 October 2018. Reliance

was placed on the following tabular data, available on the

website of the ICAMA:

Registered info

Registered number: PD20132005 First

Prove:

Oct

11,

2018

Period: Oct 11,

2023

ProductName: Halosulfuron-

methyl 98%

Toxicity: L

Formulation:

TC

Manufacturer: JIANGSU AGROCHEM

LABORATORY CO.LTD.

Country:

Remarks:

ActiveIngredient

ActiveIngredient Content

Halosulfuron-methyl 98%

Jiangsu could not, therefore have been the manufacturer of the

RTT Sample which was imported in 2011. This itself indicated

the falsity of CCPL’s claims. Though it was averred that

Jiangsu had been granted provisional registration for

manufacture of HSMT in 2011, no documents to that effect

were on record, except a self-serving letter from Jiangsu,

extracted in para 11 supra. Moreover, the Guidelines issued by

LPA 215/2023 Page 26 of 43

the RC governing import of RTT samples, extracted in para 2

supra, required the details of the manufacturer and supplier to

be entered on the RTT Permit, which was also not done.

(iii) CCPL had sought to contend, before the RC, that the

RTT Sample had been manufactured by Jiangsu and exported to

India by Fertiagro under an Exclusive Service Agreement

30

dated 8 December 2010, executed between them. Given the fact

that, even as per the respondents’ case, Jiangsu was granted a

license for provisional manufacture of HSMT only in 2011, it

was obvious that no ESA could have been executed in 2010 for

sale, overseas, of the product of Jiangsu through Fertiagro.

(iv) Moreover, the Brief Note which was filed by the UOI

clarified that, in the application submitted by it for obtaining the

RTT Permit, CCPL had declared the supplier, as well as the

manufacturer, of the HSM 98%, as Fertiagro, Singapore.

(v) The documents on record revealed that Jiangsu had been

granted registration, in December 2013, for manufacture of

95% HSM, not 98% and that, in fact, registration for

manufacture of HSM 98% was granted only on 11 October

2018. The Registration Data relating to the registration granted

to Jiangsu in December 2013, as contained on the website of

the ICAMA, read as under:

Registered info

Registered number: LS20110312 First Dec Period: Dec 5,

30

"ES" hereinafter

LPA 215/2023 Page 27 of 43

Prove: 5,

2013

2014

ProductName: Halosulfuron-

methyl 95%

Toxicity: L

Formulation:

TC

Manufacturer: JIANGSU AGROCHEM

LABORATORY CO.LTD.

Country:

Remarks:

ActiveIngredient

Active Ingredient Content

Halosulfuron-methyl 95%

The learned Single Judge has, in para 22 of the impugned

judgement, clearly erred in holding that temporary registration,

for manufacture of HSMT 98% w/w, had been granted to CCPL

in 2011 vide Registration No. LS 20110312 and that permanent

registration was granted in 2013 vide Registration No. PD

20132005. In fact, Registration No. LS 20110312 was granted

on 5 December 2013 for manufacture of HSM 95%, not 98%,

and it was only with effect from 11 October 2018 that

registration had been granted to Jiangsu, vide Registration No.

PD 20132005, for manufacture of HSM 98%.

(vi) The Section 10 petition referred by appellant had been

rejected without any reasons.

(vii) Though the learned Single Judge has, in the impugned

judgment, observed that the record disclosed that Jiangsu was

manufacturing HSMT 98% in 2011, no such record was

forthcoming. In fact, this observation is contrary to the actual

record. In the process, the learned Single Judge ignored the data

relating to the registration is granted to Jiangsu for manufacture

LPA 215/2023 Page 28 of 43

of HSM and HSMT, as contained on the website of the

ICAMA, which was the registering authority.

(viii) Reliance on the decision taken in the 369

th

Meeting of the

RC held on 4 October 2016, vide Agenda Item No. 2.2, was

misplaced. The decision read thus:

“The committee further decided that no application with the

data generated using unauthorised sample (without

obtaining RTT permit) shall be accepted/processed on or

after the 1/01/2017. It was also decided that if any studies

of any product under any category is undergoing with such

samples, the same may be intimated to the APPA &

Secretary (CIB&RC) by 30/11/2016 through email at

cibsecy@nic.in. A Public Notice to this effect was also

issued.”

This decision referred to an unauthorised sample as one which

was without obtaining RTT permit. CCPL had, however,

obtained an RTT permit on 30 March 2011. The amnesty

granted in cases of studies of products under any category

undergone with such samples would not be available to CCPL,

as the manufacturer of the RTT Sample was declared as

Fertiagro, whereas the manufacture of the HSMT which was

sought to be imported under Section 9 was declared as Jiangsu.

(ix) On the aspect of locus standi¸ the Appellant relies on the

judgement of the Supreme Court in Jayaraj v. Commissioner

of Excise

31

.

II. Submissions of Mr. Arvind Nigam on behalf of CCPL

31

(2000) 7 SCC 552

LPA 215/2023 Page 29 of 43

28. Arguing for CCPL per contra, Mr. Nigam submits as under:

(i) The appellant had no locus standi to file the

appeal/revision application under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act.

(ii) The RC had evaluated the samples submitted by CCPL

on all parameters before granting Section 9(3) permission to

CCPL to import HSMT 98% w/w.

(iii) CCPL had, in 2011, procured the RTT sample from

Fertiagro. It was only after generating data and conducting all

tests and trials on the sample, which was confirming to 98%

purity, that CCPL submitted its application/dossier, along with

Form 1 on 11 April 2016, for grant of Section 9(3) registration.

On clarification being sought by the RC with respect to the

difference in the source of the HSM, as declared in the RTT

Permit and in the Section 9(3) application, CCPL had clarified,

vide letter dated 2 November 2016, that the sample which had

been imported by it under the RTT permit was in fact

manufactured by Jiangsu, though it was supplied by Fertiagro.

Further explanation and clarifications were provided by CCPL

before the RC at its 430

th

meeting held on 23 July 2021 and it

was only after consideration of the said explanation, and all

relevant facts and circumstances, that the RC granted

registration to CCPL to import HSMT 98% from Fertiagro,

manufactured by Jiangsu.

LPA 215/2023 Page 30 of 43

(iv) Jiangsu was, in fact, the authorised manufacturer of

HSMT in China since 2011. It had been granted temporary

registration to manufacture HSMT from the ICAMA in 2011,

and granted permanent registration in 2013. On 8 December

2010, the ESA had been executed between Jiangsu and

Fertiagro, under which Fertiagro was contracted to sell the

products of Jiangsu.

(v) A reading of the temporary registration No. LS 20110312

revealed that 95% was specified as a minimum. Tests and trials,

conducted on the HSMT revealed that it was having purity of

98%. The CCPL also had the products tested in the Central

Insecticide Laboratory, which disclosed that the purity of the

RTT sample was 98%.

In such circumstances, Mr. Nigam submits that the learned Single

Judge was justified in his decision not to interfere with the exercise of

subjective satisfaction by the RC.

E. Analysis

29. The balance, in such cases, has to be maintained between

restraint against interference with bona fide exercise, by the

competent executive authority, of discretion lawfully conferred by the

law on such authority, and ensuring that the mandate of the statute is

complied with.

LPA 215/2023 Page 31 of 43

30. From the times of Taylor v. Taylor

32

, through the judgment of

the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor

33

, through a host

of judgments of Supreme Court till as late as Mandeep Singh v. State

of Punjab

34

, the settled legal position is that, where the law requires a

particular act to be done in a particular manner, that act must be done

in that manner or not done at all, all other methods of doing the act

being necessarily forbidden. If, therefore, the manner in which

registration was granted to CCPL, to import HSMT 98% w/w,

following the decision taken in the 430

th

meeting of the RC held on 23

July 2021, infracts any mandate of the law, the decision would

become illegal, applying the Taylor v. Taylor principle. If, however,

no mandate of the law was breached while granting the registration,

then the Court would ordinarily defer to the exercise of discretion by

the executive authority, unless the exercise is found to be mala fide or

manifestly arbitrary.

31. Inasmuch as the registration was granted under Section 9(3) of

the Act, it is necessary to carefully read and understand Section 9(3).

Section 9(3) requires the RC to carry out “such enquiry as it deems

fit” and to satisfy itself “that the insecticide to which the application

relates conforms to the claims made by the importer or the

manufacturer as regards the efficacy of the insecticide and its safety to

human beings and animals”. Once the RC satisfies itself on these

aspects, registration may be granted, as sought by the applicant.

32

LR 1 Ch 426

33

AIR 1936 PC 253

34

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1420

LPA 215/2023 Page 32 of 43

32. The second proviso to Section 9(3) empowers the RC to deny

registration in a case where the applicant undertakes to put, in place,

precautions to ensure safety of the insecticide to human beings and

animals. However, the present case does not involve the application of

the said proviso.

33. Section 9(3) does not set out any empirical basis on which the

RC is to proceed while arriving at the requisite satisfaction regarding

safety and efficacy of the insecticide of which import, or indigenous

manufacture, is proposed. No guidelines can be gleaned from the said

provision. Section 5(5) of the Act, however, empowers the RC to

regulate its own procedure and the conduct of business to be

transacted by it. Section 36 of the Act empowers the Central

Government to make rules for the purposes of giving effect to the

provisions of the Act. In exercise of the powers conferred by the said

Section, the Central Government notified the Insecticides Rules in

1971. Rule 4 of the Insecticides Rules, in clause (b), empowers the

RC to carry out incidental or consequential matters necessary for

carrying out the functions assigned to it under the Act or the

Insecticides Rules. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of

the Act and Rule 4 of the Rules, the RC, from time to time, issues

Guidelines setting standards for regulating registration of insecticide

for export of indigenous manufacture, among other things.

34. Ms. Ramamoorthy laid emphasis on the decision of the RC,

taken in its 369

th

meeting held on 4 October 2016, not to accept or

process any unauthorised sample and, in the event of any studies of

LPA 215/2023 Page 33 of 43

any product under any category being still undergone in respect of

such sample, the requirement of intimation to the APPA and the

Secretary (CIB & RC). The words “unauthorised sample” has been

clarified in the decision taken on Agenda Item 2.2 by the RC in its

369

th

Meeting as a sample which was without obtaining RTT permit.

35. Though CCPL had applied under Section 9(3) for permission to

import HSMT 98% w/w and indigenously manufacture HSM 75%

WG on 11 April 2016, prior to the decision taken by the RC in its

369

th

Meeting which took place only on 4 October 2016, the addition

may still apply to CCPL’s application, as it referred not merely to

“acceptance” of the application, but also to “processing” of the

application. Inasmuch as the protocol represented a system put in

place in order to ensure that efficacy and safety of the pesticide, it has

to be strictly enforced, especially as the decision itself is not under

challenge before us.

36. Even so read, the entitlement of CCPL to registration under

Section 9(3), as applied on 11 April 2016, may not be seriously

affected by the stipulation. This is because the proscription, envisaged

in the said decision, was against acceptance or processing of an

application with data generated using an unauthorised sample, with

the words “unauthorised sample” being clarified as a sample which

was without obtaining RTT permit. There is no dispute that the data

which was enclosed by CCPL, while applying under Section 9(3), was

generated using the sample imported under the RTT permit dated 30

March 2011, issued by the RC itself. It cannot, therefore, be alleged

LPA 215/2023 Page 34 of 43

that the Section 9(3) application was accompanied by data which was

generated using an unauthorised sample.

37. The grant of registration to CCPL under Section 9(3) of the Act

cannot, therefore, be said to infract the decision taken by the RC in its

369

th

meeting, in Agenda Item 2.2.

38. Our attention has not been invited to any specific Guideline

issued by the RC, or other binding statutory or executive instrument,

which required an applicant under Section 9(3) to, prior to the

application, import a sample under an RTT permit, generate data and

use the said data as the basis for its subsequent Section 9(3)

application.

39. Ms. Ramamoorthy placed reliance, in this context, on the

“Guidelines for Import of Sample Quantity of Pesticides for Research,

And Trial (RTT) Purposes” issued by the RC consequent to the

decisions taken in its 148

th

, 245

th

and 329

th

meeting, reproduced in

para 2 supra. The reliance, to our mind, is misplaced. The said

Guidelines merely regulate import of sample quantities of pesticides

for RTT purposes. They cannot be read as enforcing a mandate to the

effect that an application under Section 9(3) must necessarily be

preceded by RTT’s testing of a sample and generation of data

therefrom.

40. This aspect may not, however, be of much significance in the

present case, as the fact of the matter is that CCPL in fact relied on the

data generated using the HSMT sample imported under the RTT

LPA 215/2023 Page 35 of 43

permit dated 30 March 2011. It was for this reason that, in the 429

th

meeting, the RC noted that there was a discrepancy in the source of

procurement of the HSMT as reflected in the RTT Permit and in the

Section 9(3) application submitted by CCPL. CCPL was, therefore,

directed to explain this discrepancy in the 430

th

meeting. CCPL claims

to have done so. Mr. Nigam’s contention is that the minutes of the

438

th

RC Meeting itself reflect that the various aspects pointed out by

CCPL were holistically considered by the RC, and an informed

decision taken to grant registration under Section 9(3), as was sought

by CCPL. This decision, according to Mr. Nigam, is not one which

invites interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

41. It is necessary, therefore, to examine the reliability of the

explanation proffered by CPL for the discrepancy of the HSMT, as

reflected on the RTT Permit and in the Section 9(3) application.

42. When we do so, we find ourselves unable to agree with the

learned Single Judge that the discrepancy stood satisfactorily

explained by CCPL and that, therefore, the Section 9(3) registration

had been lawfully granted to it.

43. It is worthwhile to reiterate, here, that grant of registration

under Section 9(3) has statutorily to be preceded by the arrival, by the

RC, of subjective satisfaction regarding the efficacy and safety of the

insecticide for which the application was made. In the case of CCPL,

the data produced by CCPL, as evidence of such safety and efficacy,

LPA 215/2023 Page 36 of 43

was the data generated by trial and testing on the sample imported

under the RTT permit. If the sample imported under the RTT permit

could not be equated with the insecticide of which import and

indigenous manufacture was being sought, it would become a case of

no evidence of safety and efficacy of the insecticide and, consequently,

of manifestly illegal grant of registration under Section 9(3).

44. The issue of whether the HSMT, of which the sample was

imported by CCPL under the RTT Permit, was the same as the

HSMT, for the import of which the Section 9(3) application had been

made by CCPL, therefore, acquires primordial significance.

45. Though the RC, in its 430

th

meeting, expressed satisfaction in

that regard, we are unable to agree that, before arriving at such

satisfaction, the discretion which vested in the RC was legally and

properly exercised.

46. Before elucidating why we so feel, we may dispense with the

submission of Ms. Ramamoorthy that the very requisitioning of an

affidavit, from CCPL, in the 431

st

meeting, was an indicator of the

fact that, prior thereto, the RC was not possessed of the requisite

satisfaction regarding the safety and efficacy of the HSMT, for the

import of which the Section 9(3) application had been filed by CCPL.

The mere requisitioning of an affidavit cannot, to our mind, operate as

conclusive evidence of the absence of any satisfaction having been

arrived at, prior thereto, by the RC. Affidavits, on many occasions, are

sought merely ex abundanti cautela. The calling for an affidavit

would bind the deponent down to the assertions in the affidavit, which

LPA 215/2023 Page 37 of 43

would confer additional sanctity thereto. The mere fact that, in its

431

st

meeting, the RC required CCPL to file an affidavit in the terms

stipulated in the said Meeting cannot, therefore, be of any substantial

significance.

47. At the same time, there are numerous infirmities which plague

the submission of CCPL that the sample of HSMT, which was

imported by CCPL under the RTT Permit granted to it on 30 March

2011, was also manufactured by Jiangsu.

48. In the first place, there is nothing to indicate that, in 2011,

Jiangsu had a registration, by the ICAMA, authorising it to

manufacture HSMT. No document to that effect, has been placed on

record, except the self-serving letter dated 10 August 2021, by

Jiangsu. The only two registrations granted to Jiangsu, which are

forthcoming on the record, are the registrations dated 5 December

2013 and 11 October 2018. The registration dated 5 December 2013 is

for manufacture of 95% HSMT. Though Mr. Nigam sought to contend

that 95% was stipulated as a minimum, there is nothing in the

registration certificate itself, as available on the website of the

ICAMA, to so indicate. A registration which has been granted to

manufacture HSMT 95% w/w cannot, quite obviously, be equated

with a registration which permits the manufacture of HSMT 98%

w/w. The registration of 11 October 2018 was much after the

application dated 11 April 2016 submitted by CCPL under Section

9(3) of the Act. The declaration, by CCPL, in its Section 9(3)

application that, on the date when the application was filed, Jiangsu

was authorised to manufacture HSMT 98% w/w was, therefore, not

LPA 215/2023 Page 38 of 43

supported by any material whatsoever. In fact, the material on record

would seem to indicate that Jiangsu did not hold any registration, as

on the date of filing of the application by CCPL under Section 9(3),

under which it could manufacture HSMT 98% w/w.

49. Even more significantly, in its application for grant of the RTT

Permit, CCPL declared the manufacture of the HSMT sample, as well

as the supplier of the sample, to be Fertiagro. As has been pointed out

by Ms. Ramamoorthy, it was necessary, in the event of the

manufacturer and supplier being two different entities, that the

application should specifically so state. The declaration, in the

application submitted by CCPL for obtaining the RTT Permit, of

Fertiagro as the manufacturer as well as the supplier, of the HSMT

sample, is irreconcilable with CCPL’s later assertion that the

manufacturer of the HSMT sample imported under the RTT Permit

was in fact Jiangsu, and that the supply had been effected through

Fertiagro.

50. In order to substantiate its stand that the HSMT sample which

had been imported under the RTT Permit was manufactured by

Jiangsu and supplied through Fertiagro, though the fact that the

sample had been manufactured by Jiangsu was not reflected either in

the application for grant of the RTT Permit or around the face of the

RTT Permit itself, Mr. Nigam placed reliance on the purported ESA

dated 8 December 2010. Unfortunately, the credibility of the ESA,

too, appears doubtful. The opening recital in the said ESA asserted

that Jiangsu was manufacturing HSMT 98%, in respect of which the

LPA 215/2023 Page 39 of 43

ESA had been executed. Ms. Ramamoorthy points out that this recital

is clearly incorrect as, even as per the respondents’ own showing,

Jiangsu was granted provisional registration to manufacture HSMT

98% only in 2011 (though no document evidencing such grant of

registration is on record). There is no explanation, from CCPL, as to

how Jiangsu could claim to have been manufacturing HSMT 98% on

8 December 2010, when the ESA was purportedly executed, when it

was granted provisional registration to manufacture HSMT 98%, by

the ICAMA only in 2011. This throws serious doubt on the credibility

of the ESA dated 8 December 2010.

51. Besides, if the RTT Sample had in fact been manufactured by

Jiangsu, there is no reason why this fact was not reflected either in the

application submitted by CCPL for grant of RTT permit, or on the

face of the RTT permit itself.

52. It is a matter of further concern that, in the Section 9(3)

application, not only the manufacturer, but also the supplier, of the

HSMT, were different from those named in the RTT permit. Not only

was the manufacturer Jiangsu, whereas Jiangsu was not reflected as

the manufacturer in the RTT permit, but the supplier was also no

longer Fertiagro but Hebei.

53. In this context, the presentation made by CCPL before the RC

in its 430

th

Meeting, and the manner in which the presentation was

addressed, makes for interesting reading. In the presentation, it is

stated that

LPA 215/2023 Page 40 of 43

(i) CCPL had procured the RTT permit for import of HSMT

from Fertiagro and had imported the HSMT as permitted by the

RTT Permit and generated data from the said imported sample,

(ii) the said sample was actually manufactured by Jiangsu

with whom Fertiagro had an ESA,

(iii) all required data in each discipline had been submitted by

CCPL,

(iv) an appeal had been filed by CCPL before the Appellate

Authority, which had noted that all scientific facts and complete

data had been given, while allowing the appeal on 2 December

2020,

(v) CCPL had submitted a letter to the Secretary CIB&RC

on 3 November 2016, informing the reason for the change in

the name of the source input and

(vi) CCPL had submitted a dossier, with a revised Form 1,

dated 11 April 2016, indicating the original manufacturer to be

Jiangsu.

The reference is, therefore, clearly only to facts such as an appeal filed

before the appellate order, to, various communications, most of which

were self-serving in nature, and other such data, with no reference to

any cogent material on the basis of which it could be said that the

RTT Sample had been manufactured by Jiangsu.

LPA 215/2023 Page 41 of 43

54. The RC, too, merely states that it “deliberated the agenda” and,

after considering points 5, 6 and 7, found that the case qualified for

registration under Section 9(3). We may note, here, that, though the

minutes refer to consideration of points 5, 6 and 7 of the 369

th

RC

Meeting, the minutes of the 369

th

RC Meeting do not, in fact, extend

till points 5, 6 and 7, as it is concluding at Point 3.1. The reference to

“points 5, 6 and 7” appear to be a reference to the immediately

preceding points 5, 6 and 7 of the presentation made by CCPL before

the RC in the 430

th

meeting, as itemised in Agenda Item 2.1.

55. Besides the fact that, without any further reasoning or

ratiocination, the RC merely proceeds to hold that it “found that this

case qualified for registration u/s 9(3)”, we are unable to comprehend

how such a conclusion could have been arrived at, from points 5, 6

and 7 of the presentation made by CCPL. Point 5 referred to Agenda

Item 2.2 of the minutes of the 369

th

Meeting of the RC dated 4

October 2016. We have already dealt with the said Agenda Item and

stated why, according to us, it is of no serious significance. Point 6

merely states the fact of a letter dated 3 November 2016 having been

submitted by CCPL to the Secretary CIB & RC and point 7 refers to

the submission, by CCPL, of a dossier with a revised Form 1 to the

CIB & RC Secretariat. None of these “Points”, therefore, provides

any explanation for the difference in the source of origin of

manufacture of the HSMT, has declared in the RTT Permit, and as

declared in the Section 9(3) application.

LPA 215/2023 Page 42 of 43

56. The inevitable conclusion is, therefore, that CCPL had not

provided the requisite data as could satisfy the RC that the sample

imported under the RTT Permit was from the same source as the

HSMT which CCPL desire to import, and for which it had applied for

registration under Section 9(3).

57. We are convinced that, in such circumstances, the RC was not

justified, in its 430

th

meeting, in granting Section 9(3) registration to

CCPL, as sought by it.

58. Inasmuch as satisfaction regarding the insecticide, for which the

application was made under Section 9(3), being safe and efficiacious,

is a sine qua non for grant of registration under the said provision, and

as we are not satisfied that CCPL had provided the requisite data as

could enable the RC to dispassionately and subjectively satisfy itself

on these aspects, we have no option but to set aside the grant, by the

RC, of registration to CCPL under Section 9(3) of the Act, pursuant to

the decision taken in the 430

th

meeting on 23 July 2021.

F. Conclusion

59. Resultantly, the registration granted to CCPL under Section

9(3), for import of HSMT 98% w/w and indigenous manufacture of

HSMT 75% WG, consequent to the decision taken in the 430

th

meeting of the RC conducted on 23 July 2021, as amended in the 431

st

meeting held on 27 August 2021, is quashed and set aside.

LPA 215/2023 Page 43 of 43

60. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is also,

therefore, quashed and set aside.

61. The appeal stands allowed accordingly with no orders as to

costs.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

MAY 29 2026