Bombay High Court
Jcb India Ltd & Another vs Director Of Legal Metrology & Others on 22 March, 2018
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp4348.01 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4348 OF 2001
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 1361 OF 2004
WRIT PETITION NO. 4348 OF 2001
Usha International Limited,
"Suryakiran", 19, Kasturba Gandhi
Marg, New Delhi 110 001 through
its constituted power of attorney
Shri Naresh B. Arora, Department
Manager, New Delhi 110 001. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. Inspector of Legal Metrology,
Division No. 3, Nagpur.
2. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Weights
and Measures Department,
Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai 400 032.
3. The Union of India, through its
Secretary, Department of Civil
Supplies, 12-A, Jamnagar House,
New Delhi 110 001. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.J. Kadu, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Shri S.A. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
.....
WRIT PETITION NO. 1361 OF 2004
1. JCB India Limited, a company
incorporated under the provisions
::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2018 01:53:49 :::
wp4348.01 2
of the Companies Act, 1956, having
its registered office at A-36,
Mohan Co-operative Industrial
Estate, Mathura Road, New
Delhi - 110 044 through its
Chief Manager (Central Zone).
2. M/s. Gadre Engineering Services,
a partnership firm, registered
under the provisions of the Indian
Partnership Act, 1932, having its
address at 171, Trimurti Nagar,
Near United Western Bank, Ring
Road, Nagpur - 440 022, through
its Managing Partner Mr. Suhas
Ramchandra Gadre. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. Director of Legal Metrology
having his office at 461-A,
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. Assistant Controller of Legal
Metrology (Nagpur Division),
having his office at Plot No. 19,
Bhange Sadan, Near Ajab Bungalow,
Gazetted Colony, Civil Lines,
Nagpur 440 001.
3. The Inspector of Legal Metrology,
having his office at Plot No. 19,
Bhange Sadan, Near Ajab Bungalow,
Gazetted Colony, Civil Lines,
Nagpur 440 001.
4. The Union of India, through its
Secretary, Department of Consumer
Affairs, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
5. The Controller of Legal Metrology,
Government Barrack No. 7, Free
Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point,
::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2018 01:53:49 :::
wp4348.01 3
Mumbai 400 032.
6. Deputy Controller,
Legal Metrology, Room No. 64,
Old Secretariat Building,
Nagpur Region, Nagpur - 01. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri V.R. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. N.G. Chaube, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 4.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
MARCH 22, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The petitioners in both these matters are manufacturers and have questioned proposed initiation of action under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as 1976 Act), read with the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 1977 Rules).
3. It is not in dispute that the controversy raised is covered in favour of the petitioners by the judgment of the ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2018 01:53:49 ::: wp4348.01 4 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Subhash Arjandas Kataria, reported at (2011) 9 SCC 670. The earlier judgment in the case of Whirlpool of India Limited vs. Union of India & Ors., reported at (2007) 14 SCC 468, also clinches the issue but against them.
4. In Writ Petition No. 4348 of 2001, on 26.12.2001, the respondents have been restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioners and that interim order continue to operate even today i.e. for over 16 years.
5. In Writ Petition No. 1361 of 2004 on 22.03.2004, by a speaking order, this Court has granted ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (e). The notices for initiation of action issued to the petitioners therein have been stayed and prosecution, if any, has been stayed. In fact, prayer (e)(i) restrains the respondents from applying the provisions of above mentioned 1976 Act and 1977 Rules to the product manufactured and sold by the petitioners. This order is also operating since last about 14 years.
::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2018 01:53:49 ::: wp4348.01 5
6. In the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Subhash Arjandas Kataria (supra), the controversy has been referred to larger Bench and since then the matters before this Court have not proceeded further. The petitioners are protected by interim orders.
7. The judgment in the case of Whirlpool of India Limited vs. Union of India (supra), answers the controversy against the petitioners. In later judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Subhash Arjandas Kataria (supra), a different view i.e. in favour of the petitioners has been taken and, therefore, the matter has been referred to Larger Bench for deciding three questions, as formulated in paragraph 16 of the said judgment.
8. In this situation, when the petitioners are protected for last over 14 years and interim orders are operating and the law on the point is still not clear, we find that the interest of justice can be met with by granting leave to the respondents to revive their notices and action against the petitioners, after the ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2018 01:53:49 ::: wp4348.01 6 larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court finally settles the controversy.
9. Accordingly, we dispose of the present writ petitions and make rule absolute in terms of interim orders with said liberty to the respondents. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
10. Needless to mention that, if any commodities / articles are seized by the respondents, the same shall be retained as it is, for future use in such action, if it is revived.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2018 01:53:49 :::