Nisargalaya Herbal Company Pvt Ltd vs The Chairman on 9 November, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Nisargalaya Herbal Company Pvt Ltd vs The Chairman on 9 November, 2017

Bench: A.S. Bopanna

                            1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

        WRIT PETITION NO.47307/2015 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

NISARGALAYA HERBAL COMPANY
PVT. LTD
#190, 1ST FLOOR, SANKEY ROAD
SADASHIVNAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 080
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
P.B. PRABHU
S/O BYRE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS                     ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.DIWAKARA K, ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE CHAIRMAN
       ADVERTISING STANDARD
       COUNCIL INDIA
       717/B, AURUS CHAMBERS
       S S AMRUTWAR MARG, WORLI
       MUMBAI - 400 018

2.     THE CHAIRMAN
       PUBLIC TV
       WRITEMEN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
       4TH FLOOR, TTMC, BMTC BUILDING
       YESWANTHPUR CIRCLE
       YESWANTHPUR
       BANGALORE - 560 022
                             2



3.   THE EDITOR
     PRAJAVANI
     SHOP NO.117, J.C.ROAD
     JC RD, KALASIPALYAM
     NEW EXTENSION
     KALASIPALAYAM
     BENGALURU - 560 002

4.   THE CHAIRMAN
     VIOCOM-COLOURS KANNADA
     3/2, 5TH FLOOR
     JP TECHNO PARK
     MILLERS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR
     BANGALORE - 560 052                ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. N.B.N. SWAMY, AND
    SMT. N.B.LAKSHMI, ADVs., FOR R1;
    R2 AND R4 ARE SERVED)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2015 BEARING
LETTER/COMPLAINT NO.1508-C-646 AT ANNEXURE - G
WHEREIN THE R-1 HAS HELD THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT
OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY IS MISLEADING THE
CONSUMERS AS PER THE ASCI CODE AND ETC.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                        ORDER

The petitioner is assailing the communications which are impugned at Annexures-'G', 'J' and 'N' contending that such communications issued by the respondent No.1 is without authority of law, as according to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 is not a statutory authority and no action could be initiated by them. 3

2. The learned counsel for the respondents have relied on the observations contained in the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.No.387/2000 in the case of Common Cause (A Regd. Society) -vs- Union of India and Ors dated 12.01.2017 wherein, a Body such as the respondent No.1 is accepted as a watchdog to bring to the notice of the competent authority, if any inappropriate advertisements are made. In that light, the impugned communications are only advisory in nature which has been issued to the petitioner to carryout rectification. Ultimately, if the respondent No.1 is of the opinion that the rectification has not been made and the advertisements does not conform to the standards, they can only place their recommendation before the competent authority, who would thereafter initiate proceedings in accordance with law. In view of the said position, the prayer as made in the instant petition is premature.

3. Taking note of these aspects, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be 4 permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach this Court, if any action is initiated by the competent authority and if the same is contrary to law.

4. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court, if the need arises in future.

Sd/-

JUDGE ST

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court