M/S Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi High Court · 29 Aug 2018 · 2018:DHC:9247
Vibhu Bakhru
W.P.(C) 9006/2018
2018:DHC:9247
administrative petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed the licensing authority under the Insecticides Act, 1968 to process the petitioner's application for registration within a fixed timeframe after curing identified deficiencies, in compliance with an appellate order.

Full Text
Translation output
$-72>o iy^ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 9006/2018 & CM No. 34667/2018
M/S CRYSTAL CROP PROTECTION LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr Gaurav Barathi and Mr Aditya Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr Ruchir Mislira, Mr Mukesh Tiwari and Mr Abhishek Rana, Advocates for UOI.
WITH
W.P.rC) 9007/2018 & CM No. 34668/2018 Tlirough: Mr Gaurav Barathi and Mi* Aditya
VERSUS
Through: Mr Ruchir Mishra, Mr Mukesh
WITH
W.P.(C) 9008/2018 & CM No. 34669/2018
VERSUS
Tlirough: Mr Ruchir Mishra, Mr Mukesh 2018:DHC:9247 i;
WITH
W.P.(0 9011/2018 & CM No. 34672/2018
Through: Mr Gaurav Barathi andMrAditya
VERSUS
^ UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondents
Through: MrRuchir Mishra, MrMukesh
WITH
W.P.(C) 9013/2018 & CM No. 34674/2018
Through: Mr Gaurav Barathi andMrAditya
VERSUS
Through: Mr Ruchir Mishra, MrMukesh
WITH
W.P.(C^ 9014/2018 & CM No. 34675/2018
Through: Mr Gaurav Barathi andMr Aditya
VERSUS
Through: Mr RuchirMishra, Mr Mukesh <r\ AND W.p.ro 9016/2018 & CM No. 34678/2018
VERSUS
Through: Mr Ruchir Mishra, Mr Mukesh
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
29.08.2018
ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the present petitions, inter alia, praying that respondent no.2 be directed to comply with the order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority (Central Government) under Section 10 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereafter 'the Act'), whereby respondent no.2 was directed to decide the petitioner's application for issuance of a Certificate of Registration in respect of the specified insecticides, under Section 9(3) ofthe Act.

2. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 states that respondent no.2 will comply with the order passed by the Appellate Authority. He, however, also informs the Court that respondent no.2 has soughtfurther time from the Appellate Authority to do so.

3. It is also pointed out that there are also certain deficiencies in the •r--. applications filed by the petitioner. Admittedly, certain deficiencies were pointed outearlier and the same were addressed. However, after the petition was filed, respondent no.2 has pointed out fiirther deficiencies in the application, which are required to be cured. Mr Barathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the same would be cured within a period oftwo weeks from today.

4. In view of the above, the present petitions are disposed of by issuing the following directions (1) That the petitioner shall cure the deficiencies in its applications within a period oftwo weeks from today. (2) If any further defects remain, respondent no.2 shall finally intimate the same to the petitionerwithin a period oftwo weeks thereafter. (3) Such defects, if any, will be cured within a period of two weeks thereafter. (4) Respondent no.2 shall process the applications of the petitioner under Section 9(3) of the Act within a period ofthree months from today.

5. Order dasti under signature of Court master. VIBHUBAKHRU,J AUGUST 29,2018 RK