Telangana High Court
Adama India Private Limited vs Central Insecticides Board And ... on 26 September, 2019
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.21301 of 2019
ORDER:
Heard Sri P.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Jithender, learned Standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2. With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :-
"...............Writ Of Mandamus and declaring the action of the Respondents in not processing and examining all the Petitioner's completed applications pending under Section 9(3) TI vs TIM guidelines of the Insecticides Act, 1968, as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the legal rights of the Petitioner and consequently direct the Respondents to issue appropriate certificates to the Petitioner pursuant to Letter dated 08.01.2019 of the 2nd Respondent, and further direct the Respondents to consider and process by examining detailed enquiry on the Petitioner's request/representation for issuance of certificates forthwith and to pass such order(s) ............."
It has been contended by the petitioner that it is a registered company and is into the business of manufacturing insecticides. While so, the petitioner had submitted applications under Section 9(3) TI vs TIM guidelines of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act') for grant of registration pertaining to their various products, but the respondents are neither processing nor passing final orders on the said applications.
2
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the applications submitted by the petitioner under the Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Learned Standing counsel contends that the case of the petitioner would be considered and appropriate orders be passed on the applications submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.
This Court, having considered the rival submissions, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the applications submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J Date: 26-09-2019 dv 3