DIVYA PHARMACY V UNION OF INDIA, HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, WP 3437/2016

 DIVYA PHARMACY V UNION OF INDIA, HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, WP 3437/2016, DECIDED ON 21 DECEMBER 2018

 

FACTS

"Divya Yog Mandir", is a Trust, registered under the Registration Act, 1908, and "Divya Pharmacy", which is the sole petitioner before this Court is a business undertaking of this Trust. The Pharmacy manufactures Ayurvedic medicines and Nutraceutical products, at its manufacturing unit at Haridwar, Uttarakhand. “Biological Resources" constitute the main ingredient and raw materials in the manufacture of Ayurvedic and Nutraceutical products. Petitioner is aggrieved by the demand raised by Uttarakhand Biodiversity Board (from hereinafter referred to as UBB), under the head "Fair and Equitable Benefit Sharing" (FEBS), as provided under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the 2014 Regulations framed therein.  Petitioner's case is simple. UBB cannot raise a demand, under the Head of "Fair and Equitable Benefit Sharing" (FEBS), as the Board neither has the powers nor the jurisdiction to do that and, secondly, the petitioner in any case is not liable to pay any amount or make any kind of contribution under the head of "FEBS".

 

ISSUES

1. This writ petition only concerned with the objective which is fair and equitable benefit sharing (from hereinafter referred to as FEBS).

 

JUDGEMENT

It must be stated, even at the cost of repetition, that the conservation of biological diversity has three main pillars or objectives. The first is the conservation of biological diversity, the second is sustainable use of its components and the third is fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of utilisation of genetic resources.

We find that Under Section 2(f) and sub-section (4) of Section 21, the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) has got powers to frame regulations in order to give payment of monetary compensation and other non- monetary benefits to the benefit claimers as the National Biodiversity Authority may deem fit, in form of Regulations and the State Biodiversity Board in turn has powers and duties to collect FEBS under the regulatory power it has under Section 7 read with Section 23 (b) of the Act. 106. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that SBB has got powers to demand Fair and Equitable Benefit Sharing from the petitioner, in view of its statutory function given under Section 7 read with Section 23 of the Act and the NBA has got powers to frame necessary regulations in view of Section 21 of the Act.