Bombay High Court
M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd. Thr. Its ... vs Union Of India Thr. Its Secty., And ... on 16 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1606WP890.11-Judgment 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 890 OF 2011
PETITIONER :- M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Through its Branch
Manager, Mr. Shrikant Jarude S/o
Pandharinath, Having its registered office at
SY No.36/4, Annexe Building Raghavendra
Nagar, HRBR Layout, Benglor 560043.
And also at :
Bhupesh Gupta Bhawan, 85, Sayani Road,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400 025.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Union of India, Through its Secretary of
Consumer Affairs, 461-A, Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Government of Maharashtra, Department of
Legal Metrology, Through : The Deputy
Controller of Legal Metrology (Weights &
Measures), Nagpur Division, Nagpur,
Maharashtra.
3. Office of the Inspector, Department of Legal
Metrology, Opp. Tirupati Apartments,
Nandepera Road, Wani Dist. Yavatmal (MS)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.C.Dharmadhikari, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. C.J.Dhumane, counsel for the respondent No.1.
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.2 & 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 16.06.2017
1606WP890.11-Judgment 2/6
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the
communication/order of the Deputy Controller, Legal Metrology,
Amravati Region, Amravati dated 25/11/2010, asking the petitioner to
compound the case initiated against it at the departmental level or else
appropriate action would be taken under the provisions of the
Standards of Weights and Measures Act and the Rules.
2. The petitioner-M/s.Eureka Forbes Limited is a company
that manufactures water purifiers and vacuum cleaners. The present
petition pertains to the product "aquasure" which is a water purifier.
On 19/12/2008, the Inspector of Metrology seized the goods of the
petitioner for non-compliance of the provisions of the Standards of
Weights and Measures Rules, as the lables and packing of the product
was not made as per the Rules. On 19/01/2009 a notice was served on
the petitioner asking it as to why an offence should not be registered
against it for non-compliance of the provisions of the Standards of
Weights and Measures Act and Rules. The petitioner sent a reply to the
show cause notice. However, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 passed an
order, dated 12/06/2009, initiating criminal action against the
petitioner for allegedly committing an offence under the provisions of
the Act and the Rules. The said orders were challenged by the petitioner
1606WP890.11-Judgment 3/6
in Writ Petition No.2803 of 2009. The learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 made a statement on
31/08/2010 that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would decide the matter
after considering the reply and submissions made by the petitioner in
defence of the action that was sought against it. It was informed to this
court by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 that the impugned notice/order dated 12/06/2009 was
withdrawn. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to file an additional reply if it so desired, within a period of
two weeks. The petitioner made a detailed representation to the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 pointing out that the provisions of the
Standards of Weights and Measures Act and Rules would not apply to
the product, "aquasure", as it was not sold in a packaged form. Certain
other submissions were also made in the reply/ representation. The
Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology, Amravati Region Amravati,
however by the order/communication dated 25/11/2010 asked the
petitioner to compound the case at the departmental level or else
offence would be registered against the petitioner under the provisions
of the Act and the Rules.
3. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not justified in refusing
1606WP890.11-Judgment 4/6
to consider the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice
that was impugned in the previous petition. It is stated that though the
petitioner had earlier filed a reply, the petitioner made a detailed
representation to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 pointing out as to why the
provisions of the Act and the Rules would not apply to product
"aquasure", as it was not sold in the packaged form. It is submitted that
without considering the representation made by the petitioner, the
Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology, by the order which is sans
reasons, asked the petitioner to compound the case at the departmental
level or else an offence would be registered against the petitioner under
the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is submitted that when a
solemn statement was made before this court in the previous petition by
the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 that a decision on the show cause notice would
be taken within twelve weeks after considering the reply and the
additional reply filed by the petitioner, it was incumbent on the part of
the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to decide the representation by an order,
with at least some reasons for rejecting the same.
4. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, supported the order
passed by the Deputy Controller, Legal Metrology. It is submitted that
1606WP890.11-Judgment 5/6
the reply and the representation of the petitioner was duly considered
by the authorities. It is submitted that it was found that "aquasure" was
sold in the packaged form and therefore, the Deputy Controller of Legal
Metrology had passed the impugned order. It is however fairly admitted
that the order does not depict that the representation/reply of the
petitioner was duly considered as the order does not record any reasons
for rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the impugned order/communication, it appears that the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not consider the representation made by
the petitioner. By the representation, the petitioner tried to point out as
to why the Act and the Rules would not apply to the product
manufactured by the petitioner. However, none of the aspects
mentioned in the representation/reply of the petitioner seem to have
been considered by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. At least, the order
does not reflect so. When a solemn statement was made in this court by
the learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 that a decision on the reply/representation of the petitioner
would be taken in accordance with law, it was expected of the Deputy
Controller of Legal Metrology to give at least some reasons for holding
that the provisions of the Act and the Rules would apply to the product
1606WP890.11-Judgment 6/6
manufactured by the petitioner. Since the impugned order does not
show that the Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology had applied its
mind to the reply/representation made by the petitioner, which was
bound to have been considered, the impugned order cannot be
sustained and is liable to be set aside.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent
Nos.2 and 3 are directed to decide the matter pertaining to the notices
in accordance with law after considering the reply/representation made
by the petitioner. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
