Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2006 DIGILAW 1174 (SC)

Aruna Rodrigues v. Union of India

2006-10-13

ALTAMAS KABIR, C.K.THAKKER, Y.K.SABHARWAL

body2006
ORDER : Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI., C.K. Thakker and Altamas Kabir, JJ. I.A.Nos. 5 and 6 1. Reply to the applications be filed within two weeks and rejoinder within one week thereafter. Meanwhile, subject to the applicant taking all precautions as mentioned in the application and subject to further orders that may be passed for uprooting the plant, as an interim measure, for the present, the applicant is permitted to plant its newly developed DMH-11 variety for experimental purpose in its field within this month. I.A.No.4: 2. Reply has still not been filed. Mr.Dutta states that those replies are ready but the Government would also like to place on record its objections to the names of independent experts suggested by the petitioner to be associated with GEAC. The Government, if it has in its view certain other independent experts, their names shall be placed on record and supplied in advance to learned counsel for the petitioner. Before suggesting the names of independent experts to be associated with GEAC, the Government shall ask prospective persons as to whether they are being funded directly or indirectly by biotech industry. 3. List the applications after five weeks. 4. Rejoinder to I.A.No.3 may also be filed in the meanwhile.