IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4739 OF 2016(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Mondelez India Foods Private Limited, A Company registered under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 And having its registered office at Unit No.2001, 20th Floor, Tower-3, (Wing-C), Indiabulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 and Represented herein by its Authorized representative Anjal Raj. ... Petitioner (By Sri Dhyan Chinnapa, Senior Advocate for Sri M.V.Sundara Raman, Advocate) AND:
1. The Controller of Legal Metrology, Department of Legal Metrology, Having office at No.1, Ali Asker Road, Bangalore – 560 052.
2. The Inspector, Department of Legal Metrology, Having office at ILM Doddaballapura, Court Road, Doddaballapura, Bangalore – 561 203. ...Respondents (By Smt.M.C.Nagashree, AGA.) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated:25.11.2015 bearing Seizure Order No.1811197 dated:25.11.2015 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A and direct the respondent No.2 to immediately release the seized goods as listed out in Annexure-A.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Issue rule.
Heard Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Smt. M.C.Nagashree, learned AGA for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is manufacturer of Confectionaries. It is aggrieved by seizure of 9088 pre packed package of Panned Confectionary by Legal Metrology Officer, Doddaballapur on 25th November 2015.
3. Sri Dyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Advocate submitted that every package is required to be made as per Rule 6 of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (‘said Rules’ for short). However, explanation (iii) to Rule 6 excludes its application in respect of packages containing food articles. Therefore, seizure by Legal Metrology Department is unsustainable.
4. Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned AGA sought to sustain the order by adverting to Rule 18 of the said Rules.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused records.
6. Sri Dyan Chinnappa is right in his submission that mandate of Rule 6 is not applicable in respect of package containing food articles as per explanation (iii) to Rule 6.
7. Rule 18, upon which learned AGA has placed reliance states that no wholesale dealer or retail dealer shall store for sale any commodity unless package complies with the provisions of the Act and Rules.
8. As noticed hereinabove, Rule 6 does not apply to food products. No other provision is brought to the notice of this Court by learned AGA. In the circumstances, seizure made as per Seizure Order dated 25th November 2015 is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is quashed. Rule is made absolute.
9. Writ petition is allowed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-