Karnataka High Court
Meyer House Wares vs State Of Karnataka on 12 October, 2018
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
W.P.Nos.45708-45709/2018 (GM-RES)
Between:
1. Meyer Housewares
India Private Limited
A Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 2013
having its Registered Office at
No.30, Link Road Lajpat Nagar 3,
South Delhi, New Delhi - 110 024.
Represented by its Director,
Mr. Manu Nanda.
2. Mr. Manu Nanda
Son of Mr. Madan Lal Nanda,
Aged about 42 years,
Flat No.102/9, East End Apartments,
Phase I Extension,
Mayur Vihar,
New Delhi-110 096. ... Petitioners
(By Sri Arjun Rao, Advocate )
And:
1. State of Karnataka
By the Department of Legal Metrology
No.1, Ali Asker Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
Represented by Inspector of Legal Metrology.
2
2. Inspector of Legal Metrology,
Inspection Squad No.1,
Ali Asker Road,
Bengaluru-560 001 ... Respondents
(By Sri M.A. Subramani, HCGP for R-1 and R-2)
These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to quash the notice dated 09.07.2018
issued by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-D); quash notice
dated 17.09.2018 issued by the respondent No.2
(Annexure-E); issue direction restraining the respondents
from taking any action including lodging criminal
complaints against the petitioners pursuant to (i)Notice
dated 09.07.2018 issued by the respondent No.2
(Annexure-D), or (ii) the Notice dated 17.09.2018 issued
by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-E) or pursuant to the
seizure No.068125 dated 30.05.2018 by the respondent
No.2 etc.,
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary
hearing this day, the court made the following;
ORDER
Though these writ petitions are listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.
2. Petitioners have assailed notices bearing Nos.LMO/PC/CN/0681256/16-17 dated 09.07.2018 and 3 No.LMO/PC/CN/0681256/18-19 dated 17.09.2018 Annexures-D and E respectively.
3. By the said notices, petitioners have been informed that there is an alleged violation of Rule 6.1(e) of the Legal Metrology (Package Commodities) Rules, 2011.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that though the impugned Annexures-D and E are styled as notices, in fact, respondent authorities have taken a decision to register a case against the petitioners herein under Section 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. He submits that notice is issued under Section 48 of the said Act for compounding the offence and that the said notices though styled as notices are in fact, decisions which have been taken by the respondent authorities without hearing the petitioners. In the circumstances, petitioners' counsel submits that the impugned notices may be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would 4 submit that what has been assailed in these writ petitions are notices and that liberty may be reserved to the petitioners to reply to the said notices, if they so desire and if this Court is to direct, the same would be considered in accordance with law.
6. By way of reply, learned counsel for petitioners would submit that petitioners would reply to the impugned notices and pending consideration of their case and passing a speaking order thereon, no precipitative action may be taken as against the petitioners herein.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and contentions of the respective counsel, Annexures-D and E - notices shall be construed as notices simplicitor and only after replies are submitted by petitioners herein and on consideration of the same, respondents would be entitled to take further action in the matter. So long as the replies are not considered and speaking order is not passed on the said replies, respondents are restrained from taking any 5 coercive or precipitative action against the petitioners herein.
8. Petitioners are at liberty to file their replies to the impugned notices within a period of three weeks from today.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions are disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE PYR