Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M/S.Philips Electronics India Ltd. ... vs The Govt. Of A.P. Rep. By Its Principal ... on 31 October, 2012
Author: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Writ Petition No.33904 of 2012
31-10-2012
M/s.Philips Electronics India Ltd. Rep. by Ms.Roop Loomba and 2 others
The Govt. of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Legal Metrology Dept., and 2
others.
^Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.S.Niranjan Reddy
!Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Metrology
<Gist:
>Head Note:
?Cases referred:
NIL
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the seizure of 2
packages containing Philips DVD Video Player bearing Model No.DVP3868X/94,
manufactured by petitioner No.1, from the custody of petitioner No.2, as illegal
and arbitrary.
I have heard Mr.S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and
the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Metrology representing the
respondents.
Petitioner No.1 is the manufacturer of electronic goods and Petitioner
No.2 is its franchisee. On 19-05-2012, respondent No.3- District Inspector of
Legal Metrology, Guntur, inspected the trading premises of petitioner No.2 and
seized the abovementioned two packages. This was followed by Notice
No.22/PC/2012-13, dated
16-06-2012, issued by respondent No.3 wherein it is inter alia stated that the
two packages contained rubber stamp of Rs.4499/- (inclusive of all taxes) and
that retail sale price was not printed on the said package. Petitioner No.1 has
given a detailed reply to the said notice wherein it was pleaded that Rule 9 (1)
(b) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (for short 'the
Rules') made under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short 'the Act') included
rubber stamp under the description of 'Label' and that therefore, the packages,
which admittedly contained the rubber stamp relating to the retail price, are in
conformity with the Act and the Rules. As no response was forthcoming from
respondent No.3, even though substantial time had lapsed, the petitioners filed
this Writ Petition.
Section 2 (f) of the Act defines 'Label' as any written, marked, stamped,
printed or graphic matter affixed to, or appearing upon any pre-packaged
commodity.
Rule 9 (1) of the Rules reads as under:
"Manner in which declaration shall be made:-
(1) Every declaration which is required to be made on a package under these
rules shall be --
(a) legible and prominent;
(b) numerals of the retail sale price and net quantity declaration shall be
printed, painted or inscribed on the package in a colour that contrasts
conspicuously with the background of the label;
Provided that, --
(a) where any label information is blown, formed or molded on a glass or plastic
surface such information need not be required to be presented in a contrasting
colour;
(b) where any declaration on a package is printed either in the form of hand-
writing or hand-script, such declaration shall be clear, unambiguous and
legible."
From the abovementioned statutory provisions, it is clear that if the
price is stamped on the product, the same constitutes the 'Label' as prescribed
under the provisions of the Act. Unfortunately, respondent No.3 has completely
overlooked this crucial aspect. Respondent No.3 cannot feign ignorance of the
specific statutory provisions and display his indifference to the legitimate
grievance of the petitioners by supporting the indefensible act of his
subordinates. The conduct of the Inspecting Officer in seizing the packages in
question ignoring the specific statutory provisions and that of respondent No.3
in not objectively considering the petitioners' representation cannot be
appreciated.
For the abovementioned reasons, as this Court is satisfied that the
product being dealt with by petitioner No.2 conforms to the statutory provisions
relating to the affixing of 'Label', the very seizure of the said product is
liable to be declared as illegal.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The
costs shall be first paid by respondent No.2 to the petitioners and shall be
later recovered from the persons, who are responsible for the illegal and
negligent act of seizure. Respondent No.3 is directed to forthwith release the
seized packages to petitioner No.2.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.43141 of 2012, filed by the petitioners for interim
relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J
Date: 31-10-2012