IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.23959/2012 C/W WRIT PETITION Nos. 22778/2012, 22779/2012 22780/2012 AND 22893/2012 * (GM-RES) WP No.23959/2012 BETWEEN:
THE BANGALORE BOOK SELLERS & PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION C/O IBH PRAKASHANA 5TH MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560009 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR. BALRAM SADHWANI.
(BY MS. ANNU BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADVOCATE) WP Nos.22778, 22779 & 22780/2012 BETWEEN:
M/S SURYA INFOTAINMENT PRODUCTS PVT LTD MADHAVANAGAR BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS BUSINESS HEAD MR. K. M. PHANIRAJ.
(BY MS. ANNU BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADVOCATE) *Correction carriedout vide Chamber Order dated 1.08.2019 ... PETITIONER ... PETITIONER WP No.22893/2012 BETWEEN:
M/S UBS PUBLISHERS DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD CRESCENT NO.148, 1ST FLOOR MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560026 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR BALRAM SADHWANI (BY MS. ANNU BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL METROLOGY DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY NO.21, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560003 3. THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY NO.21, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560003 4. THE UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL METROLOGY, ROOM NO.461-A, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (COMMON) (BY SRI N. DINESH RAO, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI VENKATASATYANARAYAN A, CGC FOR R4) WRIT PETITION No.23959/2012 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF LEGAL METROLOGY ACT, 2009 AND THE LEGAL METROLOGY (PACKED COMMODITY) RULES, 2011 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO BOOK PUBLISHERS AND BOOK SELLERS.
WRIT PETITION No.22778/2012 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NOTICE BEARING NO.ILM/MALLESHWARAM-22/12-13 DATED 18/06/2012 (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
WRIT PETITION No.22779/2012 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NOTICE BEARING NO.ILM/MALLESHWARAM-24/12-13 DATED 18/06/2012 (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
WRIT PETITION No.22780/2012 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DT.18.6.12, VIDE ANN-B. DECLARE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF LEGAL METROLOGY ACT 2009 & THE LEGAL METROLOGY[PACKED COMMODITY] RULES 2011, ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO PETITIONERS.
WRIT PETITION No.22893/2012 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NOTICE DATED 18/06/2012 (ANNEXURE- A) PASSED BY TEH SECOND RESPONDENT. DECLARE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF LEGAL METROLOGY ACT 2009 THE LEGAL METROLOGY (PACKED COMMODITY) RULES,2011 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO PETITIONERS.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER In these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought to declare that the notice dated 18.6.2006 issued to the petitioners under the provisions of Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 by the 2nd respondent as null and void.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that in view of the notices issued and objections filed, prayer Nos.1, 2 and 3 may be dismissed as not pressed for the time being reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise such declaration or relief at the appropriate and relevant point of time. The said submission is placed on record.
3. Accordingly, prayer Nos.1, 2 and 3 are disposed of as not pressed for the time being with liberty as prayed for.
4. It is the case of the petitioners-Associations that they are registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 comprising of persons as members, who are carrying on business of publication of books, distribution of books and book selling within the city of Bangalore. The books published by publishers are sold in the market through members of petitioners-Associations and other book sellers as per the price fixed by the publishers. The respondents issued notice to some of the members of the petitioners on 18.6.2012 under the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the Legal Metrology (Packed Commodities) Rules, 2011 (for short, ‘the Rules’) for alleged violation and accordingly, the petitioners have sent suitable reply to all the notices contending that the Act and Rules are not applicable to them and respondents are unnecessarily, with a view to harass them, have called upon them either to compound the offence or to face prosecution under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. Hence, all these petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
6. Miss. Annu Bhardwaj for Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petitions contended that the provisions of Act is not applicable to the members of the petitioners-Associations, since the petitioners are not dealing with the ‘books’ which do not fall within the definition of ‘commodities’ or ‘pre-packed commodities’ and therefore, the action of the respondents is illegal and liable to be quashed. She would further contend that the provisions of the Act and Rules are applicable only to manufacturers, dealers dealing in goods/commodities and it is a well settled law that the books do not fall within the definition of ‘commodities’ or ‘goods’. On plain reading of definition of ‘books’, it is evident that the same is not a ‘commodity’ and therefore, the provisions of the Act and the Rules are not applicable to the petitioners. Therefore, she contended that the impugned notices issued by the respondents to the petitioners are liable to be quashed. In support of her contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Others –vs- Subhash Arjundas Kataria reported in 2011(9) SCC 670 particularly para-9 of the said judgment. Therefore, she sought to allow the writ petitions.
7. Per contra, Sri N. Dinesh Rao, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Venkatsatyanarayan. A., learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 sought to justify the impugned action of the respondents and contended that the very writ petitions filed by the petitioners against the impugned notices issued by the authorities under the provisions of the Act and Rules are premature and are liable to be rejected. They would further contend that in response to the notices issued by the competent authorities, the petitioners have already filed statement of objections in all the cases and even before consideration of the said objections by the competent authorities or passing of appropriate orders, these writ petitions are filed. Therefore, they sought to dismiss the writ petitions since they are premature. They further sought to contend that the books are ‘pre-packed commodities’ in terms of the provisions of the Act and Rules and therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioners are members of the Bangalore Book Sellers and Publishers Association, who are carrying on business of publication of books, publishing and book selling within the city of Bangalore. According to the petitioners, the books published by the publishers are sold in the market through petitioners-Associations and other book sellers as per the price fixed by the publishers. The books are neither ‘commodities’ or ‘goods’ or ‘pre-packed commodities’. But, according to the respondents they are coming within ‘pre-packed commodities’ and therefore, they have issued notices to the petitioners under the provisions of the Act and Rules stating that the case is compoundable under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act and hence directed them to appear in person or through authorized person before the concerned Compounding Authority i.e., Inspector of Legal Metrology on 28.6.2012.
9. The petitioners though have filed objections on 2.7.2012 to the said notices issued, instead of appearing before the competent authority, have straight away approached this Court and this Court while issuing notice to the respondents on 5.7.2012 directed the respondents not to precipitate the matter. In response to the notice issued by the respondents, the petitioners have filed objections to the said notices. Hence, it is for the competent authority to consider the objections and decide as to whether the books sold by the petitioners fall within the definition of ‘commodities’ or ‘goods’ or not and pass appropriate orders.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, writ petitions filed by the petitioners against the notices issued by the respondents and even after filing of the objections and before consideration of the said objections by the competent authorities or passing of appropriate orders, are premature.
11. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to appear before the 2nd respondent on 5th August, 2019 and the 2nd respondent is hereby directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law.
12. Till the objections are reconsidered and appropriate orders are passed, the respondents shall not precipitate the matters further against the petitioners.
Sd/- Judge Nsu/-