Kerala High Court
Mr.Abdul Rahman, Kasaragod vs State Of Kerala And Another on 27 March, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 10630 OF 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 10630 OF 2011
PETITIONER/S:
MR.ABDUL RAHMAN, KASARAGOD
PROPRIETOR, NURA ENTERPRISES,, PERALA, KASARAGOD.
BY ADV SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA, SRI.RIYAL
DEVASSY, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10630 OF 2011 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No. 10630 of 2011
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
"a. Issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ,
direction or order to calling for the records leading to Exhibit P4
order issued by the Government and quashing the same
b. award the cost of this petition to the petitioner;
AND
c. grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." [sic]
2. The petitioner is challenging the notification banning
the sale of red and yellow labelled pesticides in the district of
Kasaragode. The order was passed in the year 2010. Ext.P4 is
passed invoking the powers under Sec. 27 of the Insecticides Act.
This Court considered a similar case in judgment dated
25.02.2022 in W.P.(C.) No. 14593/2011. The relevant portion of
the above judgment is extracted hereunder :
5. "This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the
respondents. The short point is whether Ext.P6 will stand in the
light of Sec.27 of the Insecticides Act. It will be better to extract
Sec. 27 of the Act.
"27. Prohibition of sale, etc., of insecticides for
reasons of public safety.--(1) If, on receipt of a report
under section 26 or otherwise, the Central Government
or the State Government is of opinion, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, that the use of any insecticide
specified in clause (e) of section 3 or any specific batch
thereof is likely to involve such risk to human beings or
animals as to render it expedient or necessary to take
immediate action then that Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit the sale,
distribution or use of the insecticide or batch, in such
area, to such extent and for such period (not exceeding
sixty days) as may be specified in the notification
pending investigation into the matter:
Provided that where the investigation is not completed
within the said period, the Central Government or the
State Government, as the case may be, may extend it by
such further period or periods not exceeding thirty days
in the aggregate as it may specify in a like manner.
(2) If, as a result of its own investigation or on receipt
of the report from the State Government, and after
consultation with the Registration Committee, the
Central Government, is satisfied that the use of the said
insecticide or batch is or is not likely to cause any such
risk, it may pass such order (including an order refusing
to register the insecticide or cancelling the certificate of
registration, if any, granted in respect thereof) as it
deems fit, depending on the circumstances of the case. "
6. From a reading of the above section, it is clear that the
State Government can pass a ban order only for a period of 90
days (60+ 30). Admittedly, Ext.P6 is dated 7.5.2011. In such
circumstances, Ext.P6 will not stand, in the light of Sec.27 of the
Act. Therefore, that is to be set aside. But, the State Government
can invoke powers under Sec. 27 of the Act in accordance to law,
at appropriate stage, if necessary in future also. As far as Ext.P10
is concerned, that recommendations also valid only for a period of
one year and that also elapsed. So, Ext.P10 is also not in
existence, in the light of the averments in Ext.P10 itself.
Therefore, these writ petitions can be disposed, quashing Exts.P6
and P10
Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following
manner :
1) Exts.P6 and P10 in W.P.(C.) No.14593/2011 are quashed.
2) The State Government is free to pass appropriate orders in
accordance to law, as per the Insecticides Act and other Rules in
future, if such situation arises again."
In the light of the above judgment, I think the validity of
Ext.P4 is already expired. Therefore, the continuation of Ext.P4 is
not necessary.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions :
1) Ext.P4 is quashed.
2) The State Government is free to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law as per the Insecticides Act and Rules in
future, if such situation arise again.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RETAIL LICENCE NO. P 27/10 DATED
25.05.2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, LICENSING
AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD
EXT.P2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LABEL AS BRIGHT UNDER RED TRIANGLE
AND BRIGHT UNDER YELLOW TRIANGE AS ON 14.09.2010
EXT.P3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE KERALA STATE ORGANIC FARMING
POLICY STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN
EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER NO. SA YO (MS) NO.
310/2010/KRISHI-THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 02.12.2010.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL
