Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3(e)... Insecticide

(i) any substance specified in the Schedule; or

(ii) such other substances (including fungicides and wedicides) as the Central Government may, after consultation with the Board, by notification in the Official Gazette, include in the schedule from time to time; or

(iii) any preparation containing any one or more of such substances;

In conformity with the said prescription, insecticide has been catalogued in schedule to the Act. Admittedly neither Bionol nor Cardol/Cardonol find place therein. No notification of the Central Government published in the official gazette including these substances in the list of insecticides in the Schedule has been produced before this Court. The attention of this Court has also not been drawn to any composition of Cardol/Crdonol in amalgam with one or more of the listed insecticides. Consequently, therefore, Cardol/Cardonol having regard to the definition of insecticide and the Schedule to the Act cannot be construed per se to be an insecticide attracting the rigour of the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The provisions of Section 9 and 13 of the Act dealing with the registration of insecticide, grant of licence to manufacture, sell stock or exhibit for sale or distribute any insecticide and the prohibition incorporated in Section 18 for such activities are of no consequence for the present purpose. By the same analogy, Rule 9 and 10 dealing with the mode of application for the licence to sale, stock or exhibit for sell or distribute insecticide and the grant of licence are of no significance. As a corollary, the assertion based on want of such licence under the Act and the Rules, is of no avail to the petitioner. In the face of the definition of insecticide provided in the Act, the licence issued by the Government of West Bengal, Department of Agriculture (Insecticide Licence Cell), Kolkata, to the petitioner authorizing it to manufacture amongst others Bionol as an insecticide does not further its assailment on the eligibility of the respondent No. 5.