MALIAKKAL INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES v. UNION OF INDIA and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/9TH PHALGUNA, 1938 **RP.No. 1002 of 2014 () IN WA.617/2012 ---------------------------------------** AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 617/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 06-06-2014 REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------------MALIAKKAL INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES PALLURUTHY, KOCHI 682 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR, MR.JOSEPH MALIAKKAL BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 110 001. 3. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, MINISTRY OF FINANCE(DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NEW DELHI 110 001. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN 682 009 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN 682 009 6. THE CENTRAL INSECTICIDES BOARD AND REGISTRATION COMMITTEE DIRECTORATE OF PLANT PROTECTION, QUARANTINE AND STORAGE, NH -IV, FARIDABAD 121 001, HARYANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 7. BORAX MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA 113/5A,MITTAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, M.V.ROAD, ANDHERI(E), MUMBAI 400 059, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND CONSTITUTED ATRORNEY MR.SAJAL JAIN ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT IN IMPUGNED WRIT APPEALS, IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14/6/2012 IN IA 445/2012 **RP.No. 1002 of 2014 () IN WA.617/2012 ---------------------------------------** :2: 8. FUTURA CERAMICS (P) LTD. SURVEY NO.851/A, OPP.JTI OIL FILED, KHEDA DHOLKA ROAD, VILLAGE & PO RADHU, TALUK DISTRICT-KHEDA, GUJARAT 387 560 - REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.KALIPRASAD M.KALLAKURI 9. BELGIUM GLASS & CERAMICS PVT.LTD. 'GREENFORD' SITE, BARODA-JAMB USAR NATIONAL HIGHWAY ROAD, AFTER VILLAGE DABHASA, TALUKA PADRA, DISTRICT BARODA 391440, GUJARAT - REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.BHAVESH M.V.VACHHANI 10. NAHAR COLOURS AND COATING LIMITED SUKHER INDUSTRIAL PARK,UDAIPUR 313 001, RAJASTHAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.RAJ KUMAR SURANA.S R1,R2 and R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRI HARI RAO, CGC R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SREELAL N. WARRIER, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS R7 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-02-2017, ALONG WITH RP. 1005/2014 AND RP. 1006/2014, THE COURT ON 28-02-2017 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & A. HARIPRASAD, JJ** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 in W.A. No. 617 of 2012, R.P. No. 1005 of 2014 in W.A. No. 648 of 2012 and R.P. No. 1006 of 2014 in W.A. No. 1653 of 2013 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 28[th] day of February, 2017 ## **O R D E R** ## Ramachandra Menon J. These review petitions have been filed by the same petitioner, who was the first respondent in the Writ Appeals. The nature of challenge and the relief sought for appears to be substantially similar and hence they are dealt with together. R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 is taken as the lead case and the pleadings and proceedings are referred to, as given in the said case, except where it is separately dealt with reference to the context. 2. The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, engaged in the business of trading in industrial chemicals, particularly, dealing with 'Boric acid' and 'Borax', was stated as aggrieved of the Circular bearing No.61 of 2004 dated 28.10.2004 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, to the effect that importers who import Boric _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ : 2 : acid for 'insecticidal use' would have to get themselves registered under the Insecticides Act, 1968 as a precondition for import of the insecticides concerned. It was also mentioned in the Circular that in the case of imports by Traders (like petitioner), they had also to get themselves registered under the Insecticides Act as the 'enduse' of the chemical imported was not capable of being determined at the time of import. Later, another Circular bearing No. 37 of 2005 dated 06.09.2005 was issued, whereby it was made clear that even the import of Boric acid for non-insecticidal use could be allowed, only on the basis of an import permit issued by the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee under the Ministry of Agriculture, on the basis of the recommendation of the Nodal Administrative Ministry. The Central Government thereafter amended Schedule I (Imports) imposing a condition, in exercise of the powers under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with paragraph 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004 - 09, holding that imports of Boric acid for insecticidal purpose will be subject to import permit issued by the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee under the Ministry of Agriculture. _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ : 3 : 3. The Circulars and the Notifications issued by the Central Government, to the extent they were detrimental to the rights and interests of the petitioner, were sought to be challenged by filing writ petitions, mainly contending that the provisions of the Insecticides Act were not applicable to the petitioner, by virtue of the specific exemption under Section 38 of the Insecticides Act. This was to the effect that, although Boric acid was an insecticide, the provisions of the Act will not apply to Boric acid imported for 'non-insecticidal' purpose. Apart from placing reliance on Section 38 of the Act, a plea of discrimination was also raised, which was mainly of two fold. Firstly, that there was an instance of discrimination in relation to other toxic chemical substances, which were having greater toxicity than Boric acid and still standing outside the purview of the Act/Circulars/Notifications, whereas 'Boric acid', according to the petitioner was not even a toxic chemical, as it was largely used in the manufacture of 'eye-drops'. Second instance of discrimination was with reference to the position enjoyed by the 'Local manufacturers' (very few in number) who were not having any registration under the Act and still were manufacturing and selling the product without any restriction. _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ : 4 : 4. The Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners (as mentioned already) were considered along with W.P.(C) Nos. 26432 of 2006 and 10934 of 2007. After hearing both the sides, a learned single Judge of this Court held that the condition in the import policy requiring the petitioners to take out registration under the Insecticides Act, 1968, for getting licence to import Boric acid was arbitrary and unsustainable and accordingly, it was set aside as per judgment dated 15.02.2012. The said verdict was sought to be challenged by the Union of India/authorities of the Department/Customs by filing five different appeals. All the above matters were considered together and a common verdict was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 03.06.2014, holding that the interference made by the learned single Judge with regard to the policy condition was liable to be intercepted. Accordingly, the verdict passed by the learned single Judge was set aside, except to the extent as dealt with in W.A. No. 1653 of 2013; virtually allowing the appeals as mentioned therein. However, no finding was stated as rendered with regard to the plea of 'discrimination', which made the review petitioners to approach this Court by way of present review petitions, stating that there is 'an _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ : 5 : error apparent on the face of record' and hence the challenge. 5. Heard Mr. Gopinatha Menon - the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners; Sri. Shrihari Rao - the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 6; Sri. Sreelal K. Warrier - the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5 and Sri. Santhosh Mathew - the learned counsel appearing for the 7[th] respondent. 6. According to the learned Central Government Counsel, the review petitions are not maintainable at all, for the reason that the verdict passed by the Division Bench on 03.06.2014 was a common order in five different writ appeals; whereas the appellant has filed only three appeals in respect of W.A. Nos. 617 and 648 of 2012 and W.A. No. 1653 of 2013, leaving the verdict passed in the other appeals intact. Under the said circumstances, the finding rendered by the Court in the connected matters remains unchallenged and the principles of 'res judicata' under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code would get attracted. Reliance is sought to be placed on the law declared by a Division Bench of this Court, as per the decision reported in **Sajithkumar E.P. Vs. Assistant Educational Officer and Others [2016 (4) KHC 353]** . _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ : 6 : 7. Mr. Santhosh Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the 6[th] respondent submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the non-consideration of plea of discrimination by the Bench is not correct. It is stated that the question of discrimination, with reference to the product 'Boric acid' in relation to other chemicals, has been considered by the Bench in paragraphs 46 to 53 of the verdict; while the alleged discrimination with reference to the petitioner/importer and the local manufacturers has been dealt with in paragraph 45 and elsewhere in the verdict. The learned counsel submits that the alleged impossibility to obtain import permit, for want of 'end-use certificate', has also been dealt with by the Court in paragraphs 24 to 29 and 34 and alleged non-consideration of this aspect can be appreciated as unfounded by virtue of the observations in paragraphs 43 to 45 of the very same verdict. Reference is also made to the observations in paragraphs 30 to 32 as to the contents of the Circular dated 22.06.2011. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner, if at all aggrieved, has to pursue the remedy by way of appeal and not otherwise. 8. Mr. Sreelal K. Warrier, the learned counsel appearing for _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ **==> picture [28 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** the Customs Department submits that, in so far as the Department of Customs is concerned, they have to go by the Circulars/Notifications issued by the Government. It is stated that the challenge raised by the review petitioners is not correct or sustainable either on facts or in law. It is also pointed out that another notification bearing No.106/(RE-2013)/2009-2014 dated 01.01.2015 has been issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, New Delhi, whereby further amendment in the import policy conditions under ITC (HS) 4 digit code 3808 has been brought about, whereby several other insecticides/chemicals have been brought within the purview of the Schedule to the Act. It is stated that, in so far as it is for the Government to consider the particular chemicals/insecticides which are to be brought within the purview of the Act and the manner in which import is to be done, it is purely a matter of 'policy', which cannot be questioned by the Traders like the petitioners. 9. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the limited scope of consideration is as to whether there exists any 'error apparent on the face of record', to invoke the power of review. _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ : 8 : 10. As pointed out already, interference of this Court is sought for with reference to the twin-folded plea of discrimination [with reference to the 'product' and also with reference to the 'local manufacturers'] stated as omitted to be considered by the Bench while passing the common verdict on 03.06.2014. It is seen that the plea of discrimination with reference to the 'product' and other more toxic materials was taken note of by the Court in paragraphs 46 to 53 and it was finally observed in paragraph 53 that the plea of discrimination, 'prima facie', appeared to be untenable. But the same was left open, to be raised in a properly constituted proceedings. The question raised and as dealt with in paragraph 46 [with reference to Ground E of the Writ Petition No. 4168 of 2007 forming the subject matter of Writ Appeal 617 of 2012] and the relevant portion of paragraph 53 are extracted below : ## **“Whether there is hostile discrimination and whether Article 14 is violated?** 46. The next question which arises for consideration is whether there is discrimination. A plea of discrimination is founded upon Article 14 of the constitution. Article 14 of the Constitution is available to citizens and persons who are not citizens. In _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ : 9 : substance it provides for three principles. Equals must not be treated as unequals. Unequals must not be treated as equals. Last, but not the least, the action of the State must be free from arbitrariness as arbitrariness is a sworn enemy of equality. In this case, apparently the argument is that by the imposition of the impugned clause there is discrimination in so far as while restriction is imposed on imported boric acid on no other insecticide, it is imposed. Many insecticides are more dangerous than boric acid. The government does not display the same level of concern as is projected in the case of boric acid. In this regard, we may refer to the pleading in the writ petition from which W.A. No. 617/2012 arises. What is stated in ground E is as ## follows: “E. Ext.P5 is grossly discriminatory and not issued on the basis of any justifiable reasonable classification. The onerous policy condition of obtaining an import permit from the Central Insecticides Board & Registration Committee imposed vide Ext.P5 has not been extended to other technical grade inorganic chemicals falling under chapter 28 of the ITC (HS) which also finds a place in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act, 1968. For example, technical grade inorganic chemicals like sodium cyanide (28 37 1100) Copper Suplhate (28 33 25 00) etc. That are registered insecticides continue to be freely importable without any such requirement of obtaining a prior import permit. Only the free importability of boric acid, which belongs to the aforesaid group has been arbitrarily modified much to the prejudice of _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ : 10 : bona fide traders in boric acid like thepetitioner. Ext.P5 Notification in so far as it is discrminatory on this count is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and hence is liable to be quashed on this sole ground alone. The said condition is irrational and would result in procedural irregularity in view of the fact that the petitioner's application for registration has been pending before the Board for over a year now.” 53. We would think that this is a case where the learned Single Judge has not pronounced on the case set up that there is violation of Article 14 based on the alleged discrimination. We find that there is no denial of the same by the appellants. But, at the same time, we noticed materials which are produced before us including the case based on the various entries in Chapter 38. There are also the conditions which are attached to the policy. Even though prima facie we would think that, in view of the requirement attached to the import of the various insecticides and categories of 'other' as already noted that, the insecticides to be imported must be registered and therefore the plea of discrimination appears rather untenable, we would not like to pronounce on the same. We would rather leave it open so that, if advised, in a properly constituted proceedings this matter can be considered. Accordingly we leave it open.” _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ **==> picture [36 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 11. Coming to the alleged discrimination with reference to the 'Importers and Local manufacturers', the observations as contained in paragraph 45 are relevant, which read as follows : “45. ...................................... With regard to the plea of discrimination the attempt made by the learned counsel Sri.Gopinath Menon,and Sri.Paul learned counsel who appears for impleaded importers that discrimination is practised between the importers and local manufacturers of boric acid cannot be considered by us. There is no such case set up in the writ petitions such. The contention of the local manufacturers is that importers and the local manufacturers may not fall in the same category as such but we leave the issue open. We only would observe that in the matter of enforcement of law relating to taking out registration by local manufacturers and other requirements, they are certainly meant to be enforced with utmost strictness. The Act is aimed at controlling insecticides with a view to ensure the safety of the human beings and animals. It is an Act which therefore relates to the security of human beings as also the animals as defined in the Act. We only would point out that it is bounden duty of the authorities if it is found that the Act is being the violated, they will take appropriate _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ : 12 : action. We make this observation, as it is pointed out by Shri. Gopinath Menon, that none of the local manufacturers have got themselves registered under Section 9. In fact, the learned counsel for the appellant also does not appear to dispute that there is no registration by the local boric manufacturers under section 9. Certainly this is a matter which must be looked into by the authorities and they are bound to take action if there is violation. Of course, it is a case of the local manufacturers that they applied for registration. But, the Act appears to prohibit carrying out the activities without getting registration if intended to be used as insecticides. According to us, no further investigation into this matter is necessary for by finding that there is illegality committed by the local manufactures which is being condoned by the authorities may not advance the case of the writ petitioners. The case of the writ petitioner is to quash the of condition in Ext.P5 relating to boric acid. We are of the view that there is no basis for the learned Single Judge to have quashed Ext.P5.” 12. From the above, it is clear that there was no omission on the part of the Bench in considering the plea of 'discrimination' as well, but the same was left open, for the reasons mentioned _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ **==> picture [36 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** therein. If such a course pursued by the Bench was not correct, for any reason whatsoever, it would become a matter to be agitated by way of 'appeal' and not by review petition. It has been made clear by the Apex Court on many an occasion, that the power of review is not to be misconstrued or misunderstood as a substitute for appeal. We find support from the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in **Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary [AIR 1995 SC 455].** In view of the fact that rights and liberties of the review petitioners/Importers is left open by the Bench, by way of appropriate proceedings, this Court does not intend to say anything more in this regard and it is open for them to pursue the exercise in accordance with law. 13. With regard to the maintainability of the review petition, the learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that, even though the verdict dated 03.06.2014 passed by the Bench was a common one, in five different appeals, the petitioners herein were parties only to three appeals [W.A. Nos. 617 and 648 of 2012 and 1653 of 2013]. The review petitions have been filed only in respect of the appeals in which the review petitioners were parties and since they were not parties to the proceedings in the other appeals, _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ **==> picture [36 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** they need not challenge the verdicts in those cases and hence that the verdict passed by the Division Bench in **2016 (4) KHC 353** [cited supra] is not applicable. This Court finds it difficult to accept the said proposition, mainly for the reason that the finding in W.A. Nos. 630 and 649 of 2012 which stands against the petitioners [though they were not parties], stands intact and unless the said verdicts are also subjected to challenge, relief cannot be granted to the review petitioners, if at all they are entitled to have such relief. It may be true that the review petitioners were not parties to the Writ Appeal Nos. 630 and 649 of 2012, but, it was quite obligatory for them to have challenged the said verdicts as well, by obtaining the 'leave' of this Court by way of appropriate proceedings, which course has not been chosen to be done. The verdict passed by the Division Bench of this Court in **2016 (4) KHC 353** [cited supra] was rendered, following the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in **AIR 1962 SC 338 [Badri Narayan Singh Vs. Kamdeo Prasad Singh]** and the subsequent ruling in **AIR 1976 SC 1645 [Lonankutty Vs. Thomman].** The observations with reference to the question of 'res judicata' as considered in paragraphs 20 to 24 of the said verdict passed by _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ : 15 : ## the Division Bench are in the following terms : “Res judicata: 20. Res judicata is a common law principle of preclusion, devised to deter endless cycles of litigation; it is animated by a public policy against repetitious recourse to judicial remedies. Also of not less importance is the economy of judicial time, which can be spent on worthier causes. Three maxims can be cited as forming the foundation for this rule aimed at efficiency and finality: (a) Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa (no man should be vexed twice for the same cause); (b) Interest republicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to a litigation); and (c) Re judicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct). 21. The four elements of res judicata--a black letter law-- are as follows: (a) the parties are identical or in privity; (b) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action was involved in both actions. 22. Though Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure consecrates this common law principle as a _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ **==> picture [36 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** statutory mandate, it incontrovertibly applies to public law remedies, too, apart from civil disputes. The Courts have held that even the public interest litigation falls within its mischief and its enforcement demands vigil. 23. In Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramnandan Prasad Singh (1916) 3 LW 544 the Privy Council has observed that res judicata is an ancient doctrine of universal application and permeates every civilized system of jurisprudence. This doctrine encapsulates the basic principle in all judicial systems which provide that an earlier adjudication is conclusive on the same subjectmatter between the same parties. Recently, quoting Sheoparsan Singh with approval, the Supreme Court in Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple v. Meenakshi Ammal (2015) 3 SCC 624, at page 648 has observed that the raison d'etre and public policy on which res judicata is predicated is that the party who has raised any aspect in a litigation and has had an issue cast thereon, has lead evidence in that regard, and has argued on the point, remains bound by the curial conclusions once they attain finality. No party must be vexed twice for the same cause; it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation; a judicial decision must be accepted as correct absent a challenge. 24. Illustratively stated, on a common issue two _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ : 17 : rival contenders, let us assume, take out independent legal proceedings before a court of law. The court, we further assume, allows one and dismisses the other. The aggrieved party files one appeal. Though the initial adjudication was through one single judgment, it actually amounts to two decisions, notionally. As no appeal is filed against the other decision, the finding notionally attributable to it attains finality. In such an event, the single appeal arising out of a case dismissed or allowed, as the case may be, is hit by the principle of res judicata. This is precisely the situation obtained in Badri Narayan Singh v. Kamdeo Prasad Singh AIR 1962 SC 338, a decision rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The same proposition of law stands affirmed in Lonankutty v. Thomman (1976) 3 SCC 528, too.” 14. After hearing, we are of the view, that the legal position made clear by this Court in **2016 (4) KHC 353** [cited supra] is squarely applicable to the cases herein as well. The review petitions are not maintainable, for not having challenged the finding in the common verdict in W.A. Nos. 630 and 649 of 2012, which stands in tact. 15. Incidentally, it is worthwhile to note that the review _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ **==> picture [36 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** petitioners initially did not have any idea to challenge the common verdict immediately on passing the same. As borne by paragraph 5 of the Review Petition, the review petitioner was in fact taking steps to get an 'import permit' and 'end-use certificate' for the past imports of Boric acid, which was cited as the reason for not challenging the judgment either by seeking leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India or by filing review petition. The immediate cause to file R.P. is stated as the issuance of 'Annexure A' show-cause notice by the Departmental Authorities, proposing to impose 'penalty', to the extent as specified therein. Admittedly, the petitioner was importing Boric acid, based on the interim orders passed by this Court, which was made subject to the result of the proceedings pending before this Court. Since the petitioner has lost the battle, by virtue of the interference made by the Division Bench, the petitioner is all the more liable to satisfy the liability, as the principle of **“actus curiae neminem gravabit”** (an act of the Court shall prejudice no man) is attracted. 16. The learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that though the liability initially mulcted upon by the Commissioner was to a nominal extent, it has now been sought to be enhanced by _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ **==> picture [36 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** filing an appeal at the instance of the Department and hence the grievance. This Court does not intend to express any opinion with regard to the quantification of the liability, either towards the duty or the penalty, as it is open for the review petitioners to have the same challenged by way of appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 17. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to make an observation that the common judgment was passed by the Division Bench of this Court nearly 2½ years ago. Despite the specific observation made by the Bench in paragraph 45 as to the course being pursued in respect of 'Local manufactures', the fact remains that they are still to obtain the registration, though their application is stated as pending, as put forth by Mr. Santhosh Mathew - the learned counsel appearing for the 6[th] respondent. Absolutely no explanation is forthcoming from the part of the Government, as to the delay involved, virtually permitting the 'Local manufacturers' to deal with the product without getting any registration envisaged under the relevant provisions of law. This being the position, the plea of 'discrimination' raised by the review petitioners, which was 'left open' by the Division Bench assumes more importance. It is _R.P. No. 1002 of 2014 and connected cases_ **==> picture [36 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** open for the review petitioners to pursue appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law, for redressal of the grievance, by virtue of the right reserved in paragraph 53 of the common verdict, extracted already. With the above observations, interference is declined and the review petitions are dismissed. sd/- **P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE** sd/- **A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE** kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge