data exclusivity or protection. The October 2007 guidelines, directing a data exclusivity provision, was brought into force after the appellant’s registration certificate was issued. As per the circular dated 30.10.2007, as amended by OM dated 18.2.2008, the exclusivity is only for a period of three years from the date of the provisional registration. Thus the period prescribed under the circular had already expired before the registration granted to the third respondent. It is also pertinent to note that no challenge has been raised to the OM dated 18.2.2008 in the writ petition though submission appears to have been raised across the Bar questioning the OM on the ground of the arbitrariness. In any event, we find that the submission regarding the data protection is completely misconceived. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent no. 3 in importing its “TIT” has in any way violated the confidentiality of appellant’s data. Mr.Ganesh, appearing for the respondent No.3, submitted and in our opinion, rightly, that in a case of registration of “TIT” (new source) it is not as if the applicant is utilizing the materials or the intellectual property of the earlier applicant. The correct position is that since the Committee has, on an earlier occasion after fully and carefully studying all the relevant and applicable materials, approved a particular insecticide there is no need thereafter for another applicant who wishes to import the same insecticide albeit from a different source to reinvent the wheel as it were and to place on record the entire mass of material and data which was required to register the said insecticide originally. In such a situation that the Committee, which is a high powered technical body, has considered it appropriate to issue a Checklist providing that when a person desires to import the same insecticide, but from a
