TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al statutory provisions and measures in place to curb such imports and penal provisions to deal with such illegal imports. Moreover, isolated events of illegal imports cannot justify shutting out the entire Eastern and North-Eastern region of India from getting the benefits of imports of insecticides, which is patently violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India from the perspectives of both importers as well as agriculturists. Not only would the importers of Eastern and North-Eastern India be forced out of market competition due to the huge increase in duties in the event they have to bring in the insecticides through the permitted places of import in other parts of India, the said increase in price would directly translate to the poor agriculturists of the East and North-East being unable to purchase insecticides at such high price, which would affect not only their livelihood, but the economy of the region as a whole. Such an event would have a cascading effect and would percolate to the citizens of India residing in the Eastern and North-Eastern parts of the country, since the prices of all agricultural and agro-industrial products would increase manifold, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Rules ) and deleting Kolkata from the list of places through which insecticides shall be imported into India, including the sea and air routes. Such Rule was amended in the exercise of the powers under Section 36 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 1968 Act ). It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the amended Rule 45 is de hors the provisions of the 1968 Act itself and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the fundamental right of importers and manufacturers in all North-Eastern States of India, including the State of West Bengal, to import insecticides through the Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport and the port of Kolkata has been infringed by unreasonable restriction being imposed under the said amended Rule. Whereas there is representation of the Northern, Western, as well as Southern parts of India in the list of airports and sea ports through which such imports can now be made, there is no representation postamendment as regards the Eastern and North Eastern States in the list o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the impugned Notification brings in a restriction which is reasonable and not arbitrary and in no way discriminatory, there is a bar to the applicability of Article 19(1)(g), as stipulated in Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. By citing Parisons Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others [(2015) 9 SCC 657], the respondents submit that the Court has to respect a decision of the executive regarding policy making as failing within the domain of the executive, unless arbitrary or irrational or not taken in public interest. Further relying on the judgment of BALCO Employees Union vs. Union of India [(2002) 12 SCC 333], it is argued that it is neither within the domain of the Courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an interview as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy could be evolved. The Court, it is submitted, ought not to strike down a policy at the behest of the petitioner merely because it has understood that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judice to the generality of the foregoing power, conferred under Sub-section (1), such Rules may prescribe the places at which insecticides may be imported and prohibit their import at any other place. Rule 45 of the 1971 Rules stipulates the places at which insecticides may be imported. Although previously the Kolkata Ports were within the several places included in Rule 45, by virtue of the impugned Notification, an amendment was introduced, by virtue of which, no insecticide shall be imported into India except through one of the following places, which were named in the Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) therein. The said places included the Inland Container Depot at Gurugram (Gurgaon) at Haryana, Ports in Chennai and Mumbai as well as Airports at Chennai, Mumbai and New Delhi, respectively in respect of insecticides imported by land, sea and air into India. The Kolkata Port and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport at Kolkata were excluded, however, by the amendment. The premise of supporting such amendment, as offered by the respondents in their affidavit in opposition as well as written notes of argument, are primarily two-fold curbing illegal imports o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a registration from the Registration Committee (RC), constituted under Section 5 of the 1968 Act at the Central level. The Registration Committee is responsible for satisfying itself with the safety and efficacy of the insecticide before granting registration. The affidavit-in-opposition further states that, as per Section 5(5) of the 1968 Act, the RC is also empowered to regulate its own procedure and conduct of the business to be transacted by it and to verify the claims made by the applicants. Section 4 of the 1968 Act envisages the formation of the Central Insecticides Board, which would advise the Central Government and State Governments on technical matters arising out of administration of the 1968 Act and to carry out the other functions assigned to the Board by or under this Act. It is seen that sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the 1968 Act specifically stipulates that the Government may, after consultation with the Board and subject to other conditions, make Rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the 1968 Act. The proviso sub-section (1) envisages dispensation with such consultation only if the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al import from the places now permitted to import insecticides. Promulgation of laws go hand-in-hand with violation of such laws, which itself does not and cannot justify important zones being excluded altogether from getting benefits of the laws. Thus, in the present case, vague allegations of illegal imports could not, by any stretch of imagination, be a justification to shut out the entire Eastern and North-Eastern Zone of India from getting the benefits of import of insecticides. The other flimsy pretext advanced by the respondents for bringing in the impugned Notification, being to monitor the quality and standards of such imports, which is within the powers of the Central Government to do, the said excuse vanishes into thin air in view of the provisions of the 1968 Act itself. In fact, the respondents themselves have pleaded in paragraph 7B of the affidavit in opposition that Section 9 of the 1968 Act provides for any person desirous of importing or manufacturing an insecticide to mandatorily obtain a registration from the Registration Committee. That apart, the license to import insecticides, just like the import of other products, is granted by the Central G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticle 19 does not apply at all to the present case, since the impugned Notification does not pass the tests of reasonableness and/or public interest, as discussed above. As regards the argument that the Notification was a policy decision , the said argument is fallacious, since there is no question of policy involved in the said decision. A matter of policy, by its very nature and definition, is of a much basic, general and wider character than excluding particular zones of import of insecticides. A policy involves a particular rational basis, on which governance of the country and the State is dependent. A policy, when implemented, has an impact and is generally backed by previous consent of the affected parties as well as stakeholders. In a democracy, a policy decision cannot be the mere amendment of a Rule, which operates as a back-door to stop a major region of the country from getting benefits of importing cheaper and better insecticides from outside the country, while at the same time the other parts of the country are given a boost by designating zones of import in such regions. The amendment of the Rule in question was not a policy deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
