[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
The State Of Kerala vs Agro Inputs Dealers Association Kerala on 11 December, 2025
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
1
2025:KER:95863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 1864 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.07.2019 IN WP(C) NO.15301 OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT AND FARMERS, ROOM NO.102, 1ST FLOOR ANNEX 11, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
2 DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND FARMERS, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI S RENJITH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UPL LTD.,
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT UPL HOUSE, 610 B/2, BANDRA VILLAGE, OFF
WESTERN EXPRESS, HIGHWAY, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400 051, REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER-LEGAL UPL LTD. MR. PRAKASH SHETTY.
2 PRAKASH SHETTY,
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
2
2025:KER:95863
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT UPL HOUSE, 6710 B/2, BANDRA VILLAGE, OFF WESTERN
EXPRESS, HIGHWAY, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400 051.
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.K. NANDAKUMAR (SR.); SRI ANKIT USMANI, S
SRI.JAI MOHAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2025, ALONG WITH WA.2096/2019,
2021/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
3
2025:KER:95863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 2096 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.07.2019 IN WP(C) NO.12509 OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 AGRO INPUTS DEALERS' ASSOCIATION KERALA,
H.O., ERNAKULAM, (RG. NO.EKM/TC/46/2017) ORGA FERT, BALAVADI LANE,
THAIKARACHIRA P.O., PULLUVAZHY, ERNAKULAM-683541, REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY C.M. MATHAI, VADAKKEKALAYIL.
2 AJIL JHOSE,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. LATE V.C. JOSEPH, VADAKKEL HOUSE, MANGUZHI ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI-
682024.
3 GEEMON PAUL,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. A.A. PAUL, AANJIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANORAMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-16.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN (SR.)
SRI NEVIL ZACHARIA MATHEW
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
4
2025:KER:95863
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND FARMERS
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001.
2 TH DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND FARMERS WELFARE, VIKAS
BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE (CP),
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
FARMERS WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
BY ADVS. SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI S RENJITH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1864/2019 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
5
2025:KER:95863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 2021 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.07.2019 IN WP(C) NO.12509 OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND FARMERS
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM0
695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FARMERS WELFARE, VIKAS
BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.
3 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE (CP),
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND
FARMERS WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.
BY ADVS. SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI S RENJITH
RESPONDENT/S:
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
6
2025:KER:95863
1 AGRO INPUTS DEALERS' ASSOCIATION KERALA,
H.O. ERNAKULAM (REG.NO.EKM/TC/46/2017) ORGA FERT, BALAVADI LANE,
THAIKARACHIRA P.O., PULLUVAZHY, ERNAKULAM- 683541, REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY, C.M. MATHAI VADAKKEKALAYIL.
2 AJIL JOSE, AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.LATE V.C. JOSEPH, VADAKKEL HOUSE, MANGUZHI ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI-
682024.
3 GEEMON PAUL,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.A.A.PAUL, AANJIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANORAMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-16.
BY SMT LAKSHMI NARAYAN (SR); SRI NEVIL ZACHARIA MATHEW
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1864/2019 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
7
2025:KER:95863
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019]
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-court appeals, filed under Section 5 of the Kerala
High Court Act, 1958, assail the common judgment dated 01.07.2019
passed in W.P.(C) Nos. 12509 of 2019 and 15301 of 2019, whereby the writ
petitions filed by the respondents in W.A. Nos. 1864/2019 and 2021/2019,
and by the appellant in W.A. No. 2096/2019, were allowed by the learned
Single Judge.
2. Since common questions of fact and law arise in these
appeals, and in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge has
disposed of the writ petitions by a common judgment, we have heard the
matters analogously and propose to decide them by this common
judgment.
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
2025:KER:95863
W.A. Nos.1864/2019 and 2021/2019
3. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent in both
matters are manufacturers and exporters of agro chemicals operating
from India. According to the respondents, the appellant/State issued
Exts. P2 to P4 letters dated 19.01.2019, 25.03.2019, and 02.05.2019 in
W.P.(C) No.15301/2019 imposing a prohibition in the State of Kerala on
the product manufactured by the first respondent-Company, namely
Cypermethrin 3% + Quinalphos 20% EC, sold under the brand name 'Viraat'.
3.1 As per the impugned directives, the appellant/State, inter alia,
instructed all Agricultural Officers in Kerala to:
(i) visit all shops and ensure that there is neither any illegal stock nor
sale of the said product;
(ii) refrain from prescribing the said product to farmers, as it is not
recommended by the Kerala Agricultural University; and
(iii) direct the first respondent to withdraw the said product within one
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
2025:KER:95863
month and to report compliance on or before 30.05.2019.
3.2 The reason for issuing such directives was the death of a
person in Pathanamthitta District while spraying insecticides. Aggrieved
thereby, the respondents preferred writ petitions before the learned
Single Judge, contending inter alia that the impugned directives were
without jurisdiction, illegal, and wholly arbitrary, as the appellant/State
Government was not vested with any power to issue such directives in
view of the statutory provisions contained in the Insecticides Act, 1968
(for short, "the Act") and the allied Rules. The learned Single Judge, after
hearing both sides and upon perusal of the records, allowed the writ
petitions. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant/State has filed
the present writ appeals.
4. Sri S. Renjith, learned Special Government Pleader appearing
for the appellants, contended that Section 9 of the Act provides for the
registration of insecticides. Sections 12 and 13 empower the State
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
2025:KER:95863
Government to deal with the grant of licences, while Section 14 provides
for the revocation, suspension, and amendment of licences. Section 15
of the Act provides for an appeal against the decision of the licensing
officer. Therefore, it was argued that the State has ample power to
regulate and control the use of insecticides/pesticides in the interest of
the common good. According to him, the learned Single Judge erred in
allowing the writ petitions.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
strongly opposed the prayer and submitted that no such directives could
have been issued by the appellant/State inasmuch as the product is duly
registered under the Act, is safe for human beings, and is being
successfully used by lakhs of farmers across India to protect their crops.
The product has undergone evaluation for safety by the statutory expert
body, viz., the Registration Committee constituted under Section 5 of the
Act and was found safe for humans and animals. The first respondent
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
2025:KER:95863
was duly granted a Certificate of Registration by the Registration
Committee for the manufacture of the said product, and its label and
leaflet were approved by the Committee. The product is being
successfully used by lakhs of farmers in several States in the Country,
including Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Karnataka, and not just in
the State of Kerala.
5.1 Secondly, it is contended that the appellant/State has no
jurisdiction to issue the impugned directives under the Act, since it is
only the Central Government that can permanently ban the sale of an
insecticide under Section 27(2) of the Act, in consultation with the
Registration Committee. The State Government can only prohibit the
sale of an insecticide temporarily for up to 60 days (extendable to a
maximum of 90 days) by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette,
pending investigation into the matter. Therefore, under Section 27 of
the Act, the appellants/State have no jurisdiction to permanently
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
2025:KER:95863
impose a ban on the sale of the said product in the State of Kerala.
5.1.1 On a perusal of the impugned directives, it is evident
that a complete and indefinite ban has been imposed, which could not
have been done. The learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the
writ petitions, having correctly taken into consideration Sections 26 and
27 of the Act. The Act does not empower the appellant/State to direct
the first respondent to withdraw the stock of the product or to delete its
name from the wholesale and retail licences. Even the Licensing Officer
cannot revoke any licence granted for the sale of a duly registered
insecticide unless the conditions enumerated in Section 14(1) of the Act
are satisfied. In the present case, none of the preconditions stipulated
under Section 14 is fulfilled.
5.2 Thirdly, it is contended that the principles of natural justice
were not followed before issuing the impugned directives. No material
has been put to the first respondent, nor was any opportunity of being
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
2025:KER:95863
heard afforded to them prior to issuing the directives prohibiting sale of
the product. The impugned directives are, therefore, illegal, arbitrary,
and not based on any scientific evidence. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge was right in allowing the writ petitions, and the writ appeals
deserve to be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
7. On a perusal of the directives, it is evident that a complete ban
on the sale of the insecticide 'Viraat' has been imposed in the State of
Kerala. There is even a directive requiring the return of the product.
Admittedly, under Section 27 of the Act, the State has no power to
impose a complete ban; such power vests solely in the Central
Government, which may do so after consulting the Registration
Committee. In the present case, the notification required under Section
26 has not been published, nor has any enquiry been conducted or report
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
2025:KER:95863
forwarded to the Central Government for appropriate action. In such
circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single
Judge rightly allowed the writ petition relying on Sections 26 and 27 of
the Act. We find no error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, these writ appeals, being bereft of merit and
substance, are hereby dismissed.
8. The appellants herein are the petitioners, and the
respondents are the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 12509/2019.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that,
although the other writ appeals raise the same question, the learned
Single Judge, while allowing the writ petitions, failed to quash or set
aside the directives contained in Exts.P3 and P9 Government Orders. The
learned Counsel further submitted that, in Exts.P3 and P9, the
respondent/State exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing certain
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
2025:KER:95863
restrictions, which are beyond the powers of the State under Article 162
of the Constitution of India.
9.1 The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that
the remedy prescribed under Section 15 of the Act cannot be invoked by
the appellants, as the restrictions imposed under Exts.P3 and P9
Government Orders do not have the characteristics of any conditions of
a licence as envisaged under Sections 13 and 14 of the Act. In any case,
the writ petitions have been allowed by the learned Single Judge.
Therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned Single Judge to set aside
the Government Orders in Exts.P3 and P9 for these reasons.
10. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader opposed
the prayer and submitted that no interference is warranted in the
appeal.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
2025:KER:95863
12. On perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge, it is seen that the writ petitions have already been allowed in
favour of the appellants herein; however, possibly due to inadvertence,
the impugned Government Orders in Exts. P3 and P9 were not set aside.
Accordingly, we hereby set aside Exts. P3 and P9. The writ appeal
stands disposed of.
Result:
With the above observations, W.A. Nos. 1864/2019 and 2021/2019
stand dismissed and W.A. No.2096/2019 stands disposed of. All
Interlocutory Applications as regards interim matters stand closed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
jjj
WA Nos.1864/2019, 2096/2019, 2021/2019
2025:KER:95863
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 2096 OF 2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 06.12.2024, FILED ON BEHALF
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN WP(C) NO.38308/2024, PENDING BEFORE
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
Annexure A2 THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 17.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP(C). NO.38308/2024
Exhibit P3 translation TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3
