JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kant, Ran Vijay Singh, JJ. This writ petition by Pesticide Association of India and also by one manufacturer of insecticides situated at Pune, challenges the order passed by the Director of Agriculture dated 5.9.1995 and also the consequent order dated 6.9.1995 issued by the Director, requiring the manufacturers of insecticides situated outside the State of Uttar Pradesh to take due permission from the Director for the sale of insecticides within the State of Uttar Pradesh, failing which their sale in the State shall be stopped. 2. The order dated 5.9.1995 says that licensing officers in the State of Uttar Pradesh since do not have full information regarding the insecticides prepared/manufactured by the manufacturers situated outside the State, therefore, it is not possible to verify the quality of such insecticides. It has, therefore, been realised that effective steps be taken in terms of Section 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968, so that insecticides of good quality are available in the State, which will also give encouragement to local industries. The Director, Agriculture has been authorised to grant such permission for a period of two calendar years. 3. In the subsequent order dated 6.9.1995, the Director had ordered that in pursuance of the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 the Insecticide Rules, 1991 and the Amended Rules, 1993 and the Insecticides (Price, Stock, Display and submission of Reports) Order, 1986, and to ensure the availability of quality pesticides to the farmers through the retail market/sale points, it has been decided to allow the sale in the State of Uttar Pradesh and for such sale, the Petitioner No. 2 was directed to furnish the information/documents mentioned therein within a week, failing which they would not be allowed to continue with the sale and all stock shall be seized under the provisions 21 (d) and 25 (1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. 4. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri Rajeev Virmani, has challenged the aforesaid directive of closure of all business in the State of Uttar Pradesh, in case the Petitioner No. 2 or for that matter members of the Association (Petitioner No. 1) fail to furnish such information, as asked for, mainly on the ground that (i) the Director has no such authority/power to pass any such order or issue any such direction under the Insecticides Act, or Insecticides Rules, 1971, as they stand amended in 1993 nor under the provisions of Insecticides (Price, Stock, Display and submission of Reports) Order, 1986 (hereinafter referred to Control Order, 1986) ; (ii) the manufacturers as well as distributors, including retail sellers and whole sellers, all are required to have specific licences under the Insecticides Act, 1968 (Central Act) even for sale, storage, transportation etc., besides having a licence for manufacture of insecticides and, therefore, no new restriction can be imposed, which does not flow from the provisions of the aforesaid Act or the Rules ; and (iii) the restriction so imposed puts an embargo upon free trade between the States and that the same is hit by Article 301 of the Constitution. 5. In other words, it has been submitted that the restriction, so imposed, means another licence to be taken from the Director, though no such licence is prescribed under the Act or the Rules. 6. Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned standing counsel, defending the aforesaid orders, did not place reliance upon the recitals made in the order dated 5.9.1995 with respect to source of power of the Director to issue the aforesaid order, but taking a que from the letter addressed to the Petitioner No. 2 of September 6, 1995, and also from the averments made in the counter-affidavit that such a power has been exercised under the provisions of Clause 6 of the Control Order, 1986, he submitted that the orders aforesaid cannot be faulted with. 7. We have been taken through the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 along with rules and have also gone through the Control Order of 1986. 8. The Insecticides Act, 1968 has been enacted to regulate the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals, and for matters connected therewith. We have been taken through the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 along with rules and have also gone through the Control Order of 1986. 8. The Insecticides Act, 1968 has been enacted to regulate the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals, and for matters connected therewith. For attaining the object of the Act and to meet the legislative intent, a detailed procedure has been prescribed under the Act. Registration of the insecticides has been prescribed u/s 9 of the Act and the licensing officers have to be appointed u/s 12. The grant of licence is the subject-matter u/s 13 of the Act. Section 14 gives power to the licensing officer to revoke, suspend and amend the licences and Section 15 provides appeal against the decision of the licensing officer. There is a Central Insecticides Laboratory established u/s 16 for carrying out the functions entrusted to it by or under the Act, whereas Section 18, which is in prohibitory form, prohibits the sale etc., of certain insecticides and says that no person shall himself or by any person on his behalf, sell, stock or exhibit for sale, distribute by any worker, any insecticide which is not registered under the Act ; any insecticide, the sale, distribution or use of which is for the time being prohibited u/s 27 ; any insecticide in contravention of any other provision of the Act or of any rule made thereunder. The said Section in Clause (2) specifically says that no person, himself or by any person on his behalf, sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute or use for commercial pest control operations any insecticide except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under the Act. 9. The Explanation attached to aforesaid Section says as under: For the purposes of this Section an insecticide in respect of which any person has applied for a certificate of registration [under any of the provisos] to Sub-section (1) of Section 9, shall be deemed to be registered till the date on which the refusal to register such insecticide is notified in the Official Gazette. 10. 10. Insecticide Analysts can be appointed u/s 19 of the Act, who are the persons in possession of such technical and other qualification, as may be prescribed for such areas and in respect of such insecticides or class of insecticides as may be specified in the notification issued by the Government. Besides the appointment of Insecticide Analysts, Insecticide Inspectors are to be appointed u/s 20 and Section 21 gives them power to enter and make necessary search and to take samples. 11. Section 21(d) is the power of Insecticide Inspectors to stop the distribution, sale or use of an insecticide which he has reason to be believe is being distributed, sold or used in contravention of the provisions of the Act (Insecticides Act, 1968) or the rules made there under, for a specified period not exceeding thirty days, or unless the alleged contravention is such that the defect may be removed by the possessor of the insecticide, seize the stock of such insecticide. 12. Section 25 is confiscation after conviction of the person under the Act or the rules made there under and says that in such a situation, the stock of the insecticide in respect of which the contravention has been made, shall be liable to confiscation. 13. Section 29 is offences and punishment, which can be awarded in case any offence is committed by any person, which is punishable under the Act. 14. Section 33 is regarding offences by companies, which prescribes for punishment for an offence being committed by a company. 15. The order dated 5.9.1995 apparently takes its source from Section 33 of the aforesaid Act. Section 33 is 'Offences by Companies' and reads as under: Offences by companies.- (1) Whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, or was responsible to the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in Sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part, any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company, such Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.--For the purpose of this Section,-- (a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals ; and (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. 16. Section 36 prescribes power of Central Government to make rules, whereas Section 37 prescribes power of the State Government to make rules and says that the State Government may, after consultation with the Board and subject to the condition of previous publication, by notification in the official Gazette, make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act and not inconsistent with the rules, if any, made by the Central Government. 17. The scheme of the Act aforesaid, thus, does not anywhere give power to the Director, Agriculture, to issue any such restrictive order or impose any restriction upon import of the insecticide from one State to another, but, of course, the duty is cast upon Insecticide Inspector and other authorities to see that insecticides which are being sold in the State of Uttar Pradesh conform to the standard prescribed and no terms and conditions of the licence, which has been granted and under which they are being sold, stored or transported and may be manufactured, are being violated. In case any such violation is detected, the Act gives ample power to the authorities concerned to intervene and take appropriate measures, which may include stopping of sale, besides confiscation of the stocks, for which contravention has been found and the person has been convicted etc. etc. 18. So far the Rules are concerned, they also do not give any such authority to the Director to issue any such prohibitory order. 19. Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned standing counsel has drawn our attention to various proforma of licences, which are made use of, while issuing specific licences for manufacture, sale, storage etc. etc. 20. etc. 18. So far the Rules are concerned, they also do not give any such authority to the Director to issue any such prohibitory order. 19. Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned standing counsel has drawn our attention to various proforma of licences, which are made use of, while issuing specific licences for manufacture, sale, storage etc. etc. 20. From the aforesaid provision of the Rules, read with the provisions of the Act, it is clear that no person can sell, stock or store any insecticides, unless the person concerned has been issued a licence under the provisions of the Act or the Rules for the purpose. Any sale, purchase, storage, transportation or manufacture without licence or in violation of the terms of the licence, would naturally be open for proceeding against, and for taking appropriate strict action against the guilty persons. 21. With regard to the last argument of the learned Counsel for the State that it was under the Control Order and in particular Clause 6 of the said Order, that the aforesaid order was issued, suffice would be to mention that the Control Order in itself does not give any such authority to the Director, though it is the Controller under the Control Order, to issue any such prohibitory order for sale of insecticides in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 22. Clause 6 is the provision for asking information and for being convinced about the business, which is being carried out by the licencee and if during the course of such information being asked for, or for any other reason, the Director finds that there is any violation of the licence or the Act or Rules, he would be competent to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, against the erring person. 23. Clause 6, in our opinion, does not give any such power to issue any such directive, as has been issued by the Director, in his letter dated 5.9.1995. 24. It may also be taken note of, that substantive order of Director, Agriculture is that of 5.9.1995 wherein a concern has been shown that in the absence of necessary information regarding quality of insecticides prepared and manufactured by the industries situated outside the State being available, it becomes difficult for the licencing officer to verify its quality and for that purpose, to make the provisions of Section 33 effective, the order has been issued. Apart from the fact that Section 33 is not attracted at all, it also does not make any mention of Control Order, 1986 but in the consequential order issued to one of the firms, namely, Petitioner No. 2 on 6.9.1995, Control Order, 1986 has been mentioned and, therefore, it can not be said that the order of the Director dated 5.9.1995 is referable to any of the provisions of the said Control Order. 25. It needs no clarification that requiring some information under the Control Order or any provision thereof, from a particular manufacturer or the licencee, is a different power, which can be exercised over any unit or any of the licencees but to stop the sale for not giving the said information in terms of the order dated 5.9.1995, does not flow from the Control Order. 26. However, at this stage Sri Rajeev Virmani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner says that the Control Order of 1986 has already been rescinded some time in August, 2004 and, therefore, we need not address ourselves in any greater detail on this issue. 27. The order impugned dated 5.9.1995, in fact, required the manufacturers situated outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, to procure one more licence for selling their products inside the State of Uttar Pradesh, though such a licence is not envisaged under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Rules framed there under. 28. The members of the Petitioner association and the Petitioner No. 2 are enjoying the benefit of the interim order granted by this Court on 17.11.1995 and, therefore, sales are continuing as they were continuing before the issuance of the order dated 5.9.1995. 29. For the reasons stated above, we find that the order dated 5.9.1995 cannot be sustained, which is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 30. Consequently, the orders dated 6.9.1995 and 25.9.1995 are also liable to be quashed, which are hereby quashed. 31. We, however, clarify that if the competent authority under the Act or the Rules needs any information from the members of the Petitioner association including Petitioner No. 2, the same cannot be refused on the ground that the order dated 5.9.1995 has been set aside by the Court. 31. We, however, clarify that if the competent authority under the Act or the Rules needs any information from the members of the Petitioner association including Petitioner No. 2, the same cannot be refused on the ground that the order dated 5.9.1995 has been set aside by the Court. All relevant information has to be given by the manufacturers of the insecticides and the licencees under the Insecticides Act or the Rules there under, whether situated inside or outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, as and when the same is asked for, failing which appropriate action as per rules can be taken. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.