Arbitrary import restriction invalidated: exclusion of Kolkata from insecticide import places failed reasonableness and statutory conformity tests.

The amendment to Rule 45 excluding Kolkata as a designated import place for insecticides was found arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra vires the Insecticides Act, 1968. Although Section 36(2)(d) permits prescription of import places, that delegated power remained subject to statutory safeguards and reasonableness; the asserted aims of preventing illegal imports and improving quality control were unsupported by concrete material. Existing controls under the Act already regulated registration, import and quality, and no adequate basis was shown for dispensing with consultation under Section 36(1). The notification's discriminatory effect on the Eastern and North-Eastern regions therefore rendered it invalid, restoring the pre-amendment import regime for Kolkata.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notification amending Rule 45 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and excluding Kolkata as a designated place for import of insecticides was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and whether it was intra vires the Insecticides Act, 1968.

Analysis: The amendment was tested against the enabling framework under Section 36 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. While Section 36(2)(d) authorises prescription of places where insecticides may be imported, the power remains subject to the statutory scheme and the requirement of reasonableness. The stated justifications of curbing illegal imports and monitoring quality were found unsupported by concrete material and insufficient to justify exclusion of an entire region from the import regime. The Court noted that existing statutory controls, including registration and regulatory supervision under Sections 9 and 5 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, already provided mechanisms to control import and quality. The absence of a pleaded or demonstrated basis for dispensing with consultation under Section 36(1), and the discriminatory impact on the Eastern and North-Eastern regions, rendered the notification arbitrary and unreasonable.

Conclusion: The notification was held to be unconstitutional and beyond the scope of the enabling Act, and thus invalid.

Final Conclusion: The impugned amendment to Rule 45 could not stand, as it failed the tests of non-arbitrariness, reasonableness and statutory conformity, and the restored position was the pre-amendment import regime for Kolkata.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated rule or notification that excludes a class or region from statutory benefits without concrete material, and in disregard of the governing statutory safeguards, is liable to be struck down as arbitrary and ultra vires.

---