Telangana High Court
Titan Company Limited vs Union Of India on 31 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NO.25830 OF 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.3 in seizing the petitioner's goods under Panchanama in Case No.117/PC/2019, (Panchanama SI No.11099) dated 17.08.2019 by issuing a letter dated 30.09.2019 bearing Lr.No.83/PC 2019-20 to the petitioner demanding the petitioner to pay the compounded fee within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, as illegal and arbitrary and in breach of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and consequently to set aside the same, and to pass such further order or orders.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Company which is engaged in various businesses and one of the business is sale of Sarees, blouses and lehengas of premium quality under its brand name "Taneira". Accordingly, it has set up retail outlets with the same name across the Country. In Hyderabad, it has set up its "Taneira" retail outlet at H.No.8-3- 293/174/14/G9, BNR Colony, Road No.14, Banjara Hilss, Hyderabad and was carrying on the said business. It is submitted that on 17.08.2019, the respondent No.3 visited the 2 Taneira Store and inspected the garments offered by the petitioner's Company for sale. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has resorted to seizure of 10 Sarees and 5 lehengas on the ground that they are being sold in violation of Provisions under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011. The said provisions pertain to penalties concerning pre-packaged commodities under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (the "LM Act"). The seizure was under panchanama dated 17.08.2019 and an undertaking was obtained from the store manager that he would not sell or dispose of the seized sarees and lehengas. Thereafter, the letter dated 30.09.2019 was issued stating that the offence was compoundable and to pay the compounding fee within a period of seven days therefrom. However, challenging the action of seizure and the subsequent notice dated 30.09.2019, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court through the labels of the products put up for sale which are placed at Pages No.23 to 25 to demonstrate that all the necessary and prescribed details such as name of the manufacturer, the name of the product, the quality of the product or the origin including the measurement of the saree 3 and price of the saree, are all mentioned on the label. He further submitted that there is no violation of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. He further refers to notification of the Central Government dated 16.12.2016, wherein, it is clearly mentioned that the labeling requirements for garments sold in loose form in retail stores may include declaration containing the name and description of the product, the size internationally recognized, MRP, name and full address of the manufacturer. He further submitted that there is no violation of this notification also by the petitioner. He also referred to subsequent notification issued by the Central Government on 31.03.2017, wherein it has been clarified that loose garments which are sold after the consumer sees them for Style/Design, tries them for fit and touches them for feel of the Fabric/Fiber etc., is not a pre-packaged commodity if the same garment is delivered to the customer. He submitted that this circular also clarifies the legal position. Therefore, according to him, the seizure was unwarranted and is not sustainable. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of H & M Mauritz Retail Pvt. Ltd. vs Legal Metrology 4 Department Govt. of NCT of Delhi 1 on the meaning of pre- packaged commodities under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on the other hand, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that Section 2 (l) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 defines "pre packaged Commodity" and since the sarees and lehengas which are sold by the petitioner are packaged and did not contain the prescribed details on the labels, they have been seized. He further submitted that the seized packages did not bear the declaration of Name, Designation, Address and Telephone numbers of the person who is to be contacted in case of consumer complaints as prescribed in Rule 6 (2) and 18 (1) of the Legal Metrology of (Packaged commodities) Rules, 2011 read with Sections 18/36 and 49 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and therefore, according to him, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the Central Government is also heard.
1 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4380 5
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that Section 2(l) of the Legal Metrology Act defines 'pre-package commodity' as under:
'Pre-Packaged Commodity' means a commodity which without the purchaser being present is placed in a package of whatever nature, whether sealed or not, so that the product contained therein has a pre-determined quantity.
7. However, vide notification dated 16.12.2016, the Government of India has issued an Advisory for enforcement of provisions of Rules for Readymade Garments/Hosiery products. It is provided that the mandatory labeling requirements under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 are applicable only for pre-packed commodities, defined under Section 2(l) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and that the mandatory labeling requirements for pre-packed commodities are therefore not applicable to garments sold in loose form and that the labeling requirements for garments sold in loose form in retail stores may include only the following declaration w.e.f. 01.07.2017:
(a) Name/Description of the product; 6
(b) Size: Internationally recognizable size indicators - S, M, L, XL, etc., along with details in metric notation in terms of cm or m as case may be;
(c) MRP;
(d) Name, Full address and Customer Care Number of the manufacturer.
8. In the case of readymade garments sold to consumers in pre-packaged form, declarations required under the Rules may be made and the size of the garments needs to be mentioned in metres or centimeters, as the case may be and any additional detail such as Small, Medium, Large, XL, XXL, etc., may be treated as additional declaration.
9. This Court finds that this Advisory has further been clarified vide letter dated 31.03.2017 holding that loose garments which are sold after consumer sees them for style/design, tries them on for fit and touches them for feel of the fabric/fiber etc., is not a pre-packaged commodity if the same garment is delivered to the consumer. Thus, it is noticed that the details required under Rule 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules of 2011 is not applicable to the garments seized from the petitioner. However, even otherwise, 7 this Court finds that the petitioner has fulfilled the said condition by giving the details about the sarees length, make of the sarees, brand and also the material and the manufacturer is mentioned as "Taneira" Company Limited and the email address of the said company is mentioned thereunder. Therefore, even though the said rule is not applicable, this Court is satisfied that the requirements of the Legal Metrology Act have been fulfilled by the petitioner company.
10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the seized commodity to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 31.07.2025 lk/bak