Delhi High Court - Orders
Mlgt Holding Limited vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 June, 2020
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~A-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 3133/2020
MLGT HOLDING LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Divya Kapur, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rohan Anand, Advocate for R-1
& 3.
Mr. Abinash Agarwal and Mr. Amit
Meharia, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 15.06.2020 CM No. 12530/2020
Hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. This is an Application seeking directions to Respondent No. 2 to issue a public notification on its Website regarding the Stay Order passed by this Court on 14.05.2020.
The Petitioner herein is working under the Brand name 'Mohsen'. The Writ Petition challenges an order of Blacklisting dated 17.02.2020. This Court vide Order dated 14.05.2020 has stayed the impugned Order, till the next date of hearing.
The limited grievance of the Petitioner in the present Application is that despite the Blacklisting Order having been stayed by this Court, Respondent No. 2 is not notifying the said Order on its Website, which is resulting in great loss to the Petitioner as its proposed licensees are apprehensive of entering into any transactions with the Petitioner.
Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to another Stay Order passed by this Court on 19.03.2020, which was with respect to one of the licensees of the Petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has promptly notified the said Stay Order on its Website on 31.03.2020 and the public notice has also been annexed alongwith the Application.
Issue Notice.
Mr. Agarwal accepts Notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and seeks time to take instructions.
I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant and the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2.
In my view, there is no justification for the inaction of Respondent No. 2 in not notifying the Order passed by this Court, staying the blacklisting. It is rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel, that when in a similar matter stay order was promptly notified, the same action should have been taken in the present matter.
Respondent No. 2 is directed to forthwith notify the Order passed by this Court on 14.05.2020 in the present Writ Petition, on its Website, https://apeda.gov.in.
Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 additionally submits that all steps are being taken to accept the Registration-Cum-Allocation Certificates which are being issued with respect to the Petitioner's brand, 'Mohsen', in light of the Order passed by this Court, staying the Blacklisting Order. This submission is made without prejudice to the contention of Respondent No. 2 that Respondent No. 2 has already filed an Appeal against the Order passed by this Court on 14.05.2020.
Application is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
JYOTI SINGH, J JUNE 15, 2020 yo/