Upl Ltd. And ANR. v. State Of Maharashtra Nad 2 ORS.

910-wpl-621-2018.doc911

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.621 OF 2018 Crop Care Federation of India

...Petitioner

vs.

State of Maharashtra and Others

...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.624 OF 2018 United Phosphorus Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

...Petitioners

vs.

State of Maharashtra and Others

...Respondents

Mr. Darius J. Khambata, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Saket More, Mr. Ankit Virmani, Mr. Subit Chakrabarti and Ms. Neha Joshi i/b. Vidhi Partners, for the Petitioner in WPL. No. 621 of 2018. Mr. Navroz Seervai, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Saket More, Mr. Ankit Virmani, Mr. Subit Chakrabarti and Ms. Neha Joshi i/b. Vidhi Partners, for the Petitioner in WPL. No. 624 of 2018. Mr. G.W. Mattos, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Amrendra Mishra a/w. Mr. Anand Singh, for Respondent No. 3. Mr. S.M. Katkar, Chief Quality Control Officer, Agriculture Commissionarate, Pune present.

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ.

DATE :

MARCH 07, 2018 P.C.:

.

By filing this Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the communication dated 12th December, 2017 issued by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Vishal Parekar 1/2

910-wpl-621-2018.doc911 2.

The learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on instructions from the officer who is present in person submits that by the impugned order the State is not prohibiting the Co-marketing but only insisting for the compliance of the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and Insecticides Rules, 1971. As regards the allegations of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the Petitioners are not adhering the provisions of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, suffice it to say that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are free to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if there is any breach of the rules as alleged. 3.

By recording the aforesaid statement made by learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, we dispose of this Petition. 4.

We expect that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while considering and deciding the application for renewal of the licence filed by the Petitioner, the same will be decided by them in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the impugned communication.

5.

The Petitions stand disposed of.

6.

Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (MAKARAND KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.) Vishal Parekar 2/2