AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bharucha, J.—The appellants are manufacturers of a powerful fumigant called "Celphos" containing Aluminium Phosphide. It is available in tablets or pellets which decompose and release phosphine gas. On 16th April/11th May 1984 the 1st & 2nd respondents informed the appellants that it had been found that they were selling "Celphos" tablets through dealers and retailers in and around Udaipur despite their knowledge that Aluminium Phosphide was only to be sold to Govt. and Government undertakings or organisations and that its use had to be under strict Govt. expert supervision. The letter stated that the 2nd respondent had decided to admonish the appellants and warn them against the continuation of such sales. The appellants wrote to the 1st and 2nd respondents making a representation that they should be allowed to sell their Aluminium Phosphide tablets without such restriction. On 7th May 1984 the 1st and 2nd respondents informed the appellants that the 2nd respondent had decided that all Registration Certificate-holders for Aluminium Phosphide should submit revised labels and leaflets indicating that these tablets were only for sale to Government and Government undertakings or organisations and had to be used under strict Government expert supervision. The letter requested the appellants to submit revised labels and leaflets for such tablets for approval of the 2nd respondent.
The writ petition filed by the appellants impugned the 1st and 2nd respondents'' letters afore-mentioned. The learned single Judge summarily rejected the petition but gave the appellants liberty to make a representation to the 2nd respondent which, counsel for the respondents stated, would be considered.
The appellants have not made any representation to the 2nd respondent. They have, instead, filed the appeal which, in our view, has no merit. It would appear that it was a condition known to the appellants that Aluminium Phosphide was to be sold only to Government and Government undertakings and organisations. Their breach of this condition merited both the admonition and the demand that they should print upon their labels this condition.
It is not for the Court to consider whether aluminium phosphide tablets and pellets can be safely sold to the general public. It is for experts to do so. They are to be found in the 2nd respondent. The appellants are free even at this stage to make a representation to the 2nd respondent! which, Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the respondents, assures us will be given due consideration.
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.