Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This is an application for interim relief in the writ petition where the primary prayer is to set aside the orders under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), passed by the Registration Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the RC'), constituted under the Act, granted in favor of respondent No. 4, i.e., M/s. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India, thorough the Secretary of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture, respondent No. 2 is the Chairman, Registration Committee of Central Insecticide Board, respondent No. 3 is the Central Insecticide Board & Registration Committee, through its Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture & respondent No. 4 in M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd., a Company Regd. under the Companies Act, 1956.
2. The dispute raised in the writ petition is that when an insecticide is granted registration under Section 9(3) of the Act after undergoing tests, the same tests have to be followed for a subsequent manufacturer and importer. The case as pleaded by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri Rajiv Nayar is that the respondent No. 4-M/s. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., who is a subsequent importer o the insecticide in question, i.e., ' Cartap Hydrochloride Technical ' (hereinafter referred to as 'the CHT') had neither been imposed nor followed conditions which are statutorily required to be imposed and has consequently been granted an unfair and illegal advantage.
3. Sections 9(3) & 9(4) of the said Act read as under:
'(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 insecticides 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) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where an insecticide has been registered on the application of any person, any other person desiring to import or manufacture the insecticide or engaged in the business of, import or manufacture thereof shall on application and on payment of prescribed fee be allotted a registration number and granted a certificate of registration in respect thereof on the same conditions on which the insecticide was originally registered.'
4. The petitioners have challenged the grant of the registration to respondent No. 4 which according to it has been granted subsequent registration under Section 9(4) of the Act without examining comprehensively and properly data relating to their toxicity which may have a deleterious effect of introducing pesticides in the market on the human and animal health. The petitioner No. 1 has detailed various tests undergone by it as a precondition of registration in respect of Chemistry, Bioefficacy, Residues, Translocation, Toxicity Test-Short Term only, Long-Term Tox studies, Ecotoxicity Data, Toxicity Test on Beneficial Insects, Live Stock and Human Risk Assessment Data and Medical Data. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that these tests have not been done in respect of respondent No. 4's products. His plea is that the phrase 'same conditions on which the insecticide was originally registered' in Section 9(4) of the Act implies that the tests undergone by a Section 9(3) registrant have to be emulated in the case of a Section 9(4) registrant also. He further submitted that even the comparative tests done between the samples of petitioner No. 2 and the respondent No. 4 were an eye-wash as the sample of respondent No. 2 had already crossed the prescribed period of two years and was stale.
5. Mr. U. Hazarika, the learned counsel, appearing for Union of India, i.e., respondents 1 to 3 has submitted that once a registration is granted by the RC after being satisfied about the parameters of the safety and effect in favor of a product, the subsequent registrant as either an importer or manufacturer for the same product may get the registration provided the RC is satisfied that it is the same product which is earlier registered under Section 9(3) and a subsequent registrant gets the registration on the strength of the data generated as per the original registration. Thus the sum and substance of the reply of the Union of India is that the Act contemplates that once full data is generated and regular registration is granted, other aspirants for registration of the same product can be given the benefit of avoidance of data generation to avoid duplicacy. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for Union of India that the registration to respondent No. 4 was granted only after the RC was fully satisfied in regard of the safety of the pesticides as per the prevalent guidelines of the RC for import of technical pesticides from new sources. It is further submitted that the data on acute toxicity parameters (acute oral rat and mice, acute dermal, acute inhalation, primary skin irritation, irritations to mucous membrane) and certificates regarding health of workers was submitted by the applicant/respondent No. 4 and the Chemical equivalence was also established with the earlier registrant in this case and submitted by the respondent No. 4. He submitted that the primary consideration for grant of registration under Section 9(4) was Chemical equivalence of the product registered under Section 9(3) of the Act. Similarly, the technical standards in respect of sample submitted by the petitioner No. 2-M/s. Dhanuka Pesticides Ltd. which stood registered under Section 9(4) of the Act were compared with the sample of respondent No. 4 and only after the comparison was found satisfactory, a registration was granted in favor of the respondent No. 4. He further submitted that the plea regarding comparison being done with a stale sample of petitioner No. 2 was untenable as a sample preserved in the environs of a laboratory could not be considered to be stale unlike its counterpart existing in the marketplace.
6. Mr. Joseph Vellapally, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4 submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is the importer of the 'CHT' from M/s. Nichimen Corporation, Japan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Nichimen') and even the petitioner No. 2 is an importer of the 'CHT' and holds a Certificate under Section 9(4) of the Act. The petitioner No. 2 also imports CHT from Nichimen and the attempt of the petitioners is to thwart the import by the respondent No. 4 from a rival Chinese principal which import is at a considerable lower cost than of the petitioners wit a view to preserve its hegemony and monopolistic status. He has further submitted that without prejudice to respondent No. 4's pleas that procedure of Section0 9(3) was not require to be gone through for a subsequent registrant, the respondent No. 4 was nevertheless made to go through the gamut of such tests by the respondent No. 1. He further submitted that the composition of the product of petitioner No. 2 and that of the respondent No. 4 is identical to that of the respondent No. 4 as is evident from the data filed in the Court. Furthermore the equivalence was certified, based on Bureau of Indian Standards. He has relied on an Order dated 19th of June, 1998, passed in CW. 1754/98 by this Court which according to him demonstrates his plea the public interest requires that the supply of a product from source other than one to avoid monopoly.
7. The principal issue, required to be determined in the present writ petition is that whether the tests required to be conducted for a subsequent registrant under Section 9(4) of the Act are the same tests which were conducted in the case of the existing registrant under Section 9(3). The further plea, prima facie required to be determined is whether a subsequent registrant under Section 9(3). Prima facie, there is substance in the plea of the learned counsel for Union of India that a subsequent registrant need not go through the procedure of the full tests. It is not in dispute that even the petitioner No. 2 was granted the Certificate, issued under Section 9(4) and there is nothing on record to suggest that the registration was granted even to the petitioner Nos. 2 to 3 only after undergoing the tests stipulated under Section 9(3) of the Act.
8. Prima facie, as things stand today, the issue of public safety is satisfied in view of the stand of the Union of India. There is also no dispute that the Chemical composition of the product of the petitioners 1 & 2 is the same as that of the respondent No. 4. I am at the moment not considering the issue raised by the respondent No. 4 about the monopolistic motive behind the filing of the present writ petition as in my view it is not necessary to be gone into at this stage. Similarly the plea that the sample of petitioner No. 2 used for comparison with the product of the respondent No. 4 was stale and hence the tests illusory, can only be considered at the final hearing of the writ petition. However, there can be no doubt that the public interest would not be hurt by their being two sources for supply of a product. Once the Union of India has prima facie satisfied the Court about the safety of the product being fully considered and the fact that the Chemical composition of the products of petitioners and respondent No. 4 is the same, then at this stage it cannot be held that the tests, contemplated by Section 9(3) are mandatorily required to be undergone by a subsequent registrant under Section 9(4) of the Act and the balance of convenience is also not in favor of the petitioners.
9. Accordingly, in the view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant the interim order prayed for in this interim application, however, it is made clear the registration and imports of the goods by the respondent No. 4 shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.
10. In view of the above, the application for interim relief stands disposed of in terms of the foregoing order.