Karnataka High Court
M/S Bosch Limited vs Union Of India on 14 November, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.39014/2009 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S BOSCH LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1913
AND HAVING ITS REG. OFFICE AT
HOSUR ROAD, ADUGODI
BANGALORE-560030
REP. BY MR. M C ARVIND MELAGANI,
LEGAL COUNSEL ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D R RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR
M/S LEX NEXUS)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
BY THE SECRETARY TO THE
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION,
KRUSHI BHAVAN
NEW DELHI-110001
2. THE DIRECTOR
LEGAL METEOROLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION,
KRUSHI BHAVAN
NEW DELHI-110001
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE SECRETARY TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF
LEGAL METROLOGY
M S BUILDINGS
2
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE.
4. THE CONTROLLER
LEGAL METROLOGY
ALIASKAR ROAD
BANGALORE.
5. THE INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY
MADDUR SUB DIVISION
BEHIND MADDUR,
T B HANUMANTHANAGAR
MADDUR, KARNATAKA.
6. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF
LEGAL METROLOGY, MANDYA CIRCLE
ASHOK NAGAR, 3RD CROSS,
MANDYA, KARNATAKA. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.V. MANJUNATHA, AGA. FOR R3-6
SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, CGC. FOR R1 & 2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DECLARE
THAT THE MENTIONING OF NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE
NUMBER AND THE EMAIL ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER IS IN
FULL COMPLIANCE OF FULL 6 (1A) OF THE STANDARDS OF
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (PACKAGED COMODITY) RULES 1977
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a declaration that the mentioning of the name, address, telephone number and e-mail address of the petitioner is in full compliance of Rule 6 (1A) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 (for short the 'Rules, 1977'). The petitioner is also 3 seeking for issue of writ of certiorari to quash the notice dated 01.08.2009 at Annexure-B to the petition. In that context, restraining further action against the petitioner is also sought.
2. The respondents have filed their objection statement seeking to justify their action and to proceed against the petitioner.
3. The brief facts are that the petitioner-company are engaged in the manufacture of the Diesel filters for Tractors. The packaging of the filters was being done by the petitioners according to the provisions contained in the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (for short the 'Act') and the Rules thereunder. Insofar as the depiction of the details of the products and the information relating to the same as provided under the Act and Rules, 1977, the petitioners seeks to rely on the extract of the same which is produced at Annexure-A to the petition. The respondents on inspection are stated to have noticed certain discrepancy inasmuch as the same does not comply with the requirement of Rule 6(1A) of the 4 Rules, 1977. It is in that direction, the notice at Annexure-B has been issued. The petitioners in that context, thought it necessary to seek clarification from the respondents with regard to the allegations of the violation stated to have committed by them. By the reply at Annexure-E dated 03.11.2009, the respondents have sought to indicate that the petitioner had not separately declared the name of the person who would be in-charge of the Consumer Care Cell and the further details relating to the telephone and e-mail address of such person is provided. The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by such interpretation of the said Rules are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the requirement as contemplated in Rule 6(1A) of the Rules, 1977. In that view, it is contended that the details as furnished in Annexure-A would be sufficient. It is pointed out that apart from the date of manufacture and MRP, the petitioners have also indicated the name of the petitioner who is the manufacturer and the telephone number as well as the e-mail address have also been 5 furnished. In that context, it is contended that the same would satisfy the requirement of the Rules, 1977 as it existed and the communication as issued is seeking to indicate something more than what is contemplated in the Rules, 1977.
5. Learned Government Advocate would however seek to justify the action by referring to the notice at Annexure-B by pointing out that it is clearly stated that on inspection, it was found that only the telephone number had been printed and no other details have been stated. It is therefore contended that the action is justified inasmuch as the details required under Section 6(1A) of the Rules, 1977 has not been complied. It is also sought to contend that the explanation as provided by the petitioners would disclose that the details indicated is not sufficient.
6. Having noticed the rival contentions and on referring to the Rules as indicated above, the requirement as indicated therein is that, 6 "(1A) Every package shall bear the name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, if available, of the person who can be or the office which can be, contacted, in case of consumer complaints."
If the said requirement is noticed and the reliance placed on Annexure-A is also referred to, except for specifically declaring the name of the person who can be contacted for consumer complaints, the details with regard to the manufacturer, telephone number and the e-mail address is provided. Despite the respondents contending vide Annexure-B, it is stated that only the telephone number is indicated, the same does not appear to be the correct position inasmuch as the respondents themselves through their clarification have not taken the view that the name of the manufacturer and the details as shown in Annexure- A has not been depicted.
7. Hence, the only question is; in addition to the name of the manufacturer, telephone and e-mail address indicated therein, whether an additional declaration with regard to the name of the person in-charge of the consumer complaints is required to be indicated? 7
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company has stated that subsequent to the clarification being made in that regard, even though the Rules, 1977, does not explicitly indicate so, the petitioners have taken steps to indicate the same in the subsequent packages. Therefore, the question at this juncture, remains only in respect of the packages that were inspected and the alleged defects that were noticed. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view and the penal provisions are also taken into consideration, the plain meaning of the Rule 6 (1A) of the Rules, 1977, would indicate that all that is required is to indicate the name of the person who is responsible in the event of the consumer requires to contact such person in case of any complaints or for any other purpose. If that object therein is kept in view, the details as indicated in Annexure-A would disclose the name of the manufacturer, the telephone number and the e-mail address. In the event of there being no separate declaration, it would have to be assumed that the very same persons named therein would also be responsible for 8 the consumer complaints or for such other contact by the persons who have purchased the products.
9. Therefore, keeping in view the literal meaning of Rules and the manner in which it has been complied prior to the clarification that has been issued by the respondents, I am of the opinion that the action initiated against the petitioner would not be justified. Further, since I have already noticed that based on the clarification issued, the required additional particulars have been provided subsequently by the petitioners, the prayer (a) would not arise for consideration at this juncture. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the notice dated 01.08.2009 (Annexure-B) shall stand quashed and in respect of the offence in question, the respondents shall not proceed against the petitioner-company.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE hrp/bms