Disposed

Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Sept 2010WP/7116/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court adopted the suggestion of the learned AGP that it was premature to adjudicate merits. The Court directed release of seized material with samples, stayed further seizures on cited grounds, and ordered the departments to pass reasoned orders after hearing representations.

What did the court decide?

Directions for release of seized material with samples; stay on further seizures on cited grounds; time prescribed for response and reasoned orders.

Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

*** 1 * W.P. 7116/2010**

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7116 OF 2010

¶5

Becton Dickinson India Pvt Ltd and anr. .......Petitioner V/S.

¶6

Union of India and Ors.

¶7

.........Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr. Gaurav Joshi with Mr. Vikesh Kumar i/by. Mr. Anil T. Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Ms. Naveena Kumari, Advocate for respondent no.1.

¶11

Ms. S.S. Bhede, AGP for respondent no.3.

¶12

Coram: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, , JJ.

¶13

September 7, 2010.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Rule.

¶16

By consent, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the counsel and at their request, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

¶17

The first petitioner engages in the import and distribution of sterilized disposable medical products, namely, (i) sterile disposable

¶18

*** 2 * W.P. 7116/2010**

¶19

hypodermic syringes for single use; (ii) sterile disposable hypodermic

¶20

needles for single use and other sterilized disposable medical critical care devices. The first petitioner has a manufacturing plant

¶21

in the State of Haryana. In the course of its business, the first

¶22

petitioner either manufactures products in India or imports products manufactured in locations worldwide. In July 2001 the Inspector of

¶23

Legal Meterology-the second respondent effected a seizure of the goods of the petitioner. The petitioner instituted a petition before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging a seizure notice dated 19 July 2001. An interim order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court while admitting the petition under which, in respect of future goods, the petitioner was

¶24

to affix the following labels, namely

¶25

(A) In respect of imported goods,

¶26

(i) A label on the shelf carton containing 50/100 pieces indicating the Month/year of import.

¶27

(ii) A label on the shelf carton containing 50/100 pieces, indicating that Individual units are not intended for sale.

¶28

(iii) A label on shelf cartons containing 50/100 pieces,

¶29

W.P. 7116/2010

¶30

*** 3 ***

¶31

indicating the full address of the importer.

¶32

(B) In respect of goods manufactured in India, the month and year of manufacture.

¶33

The petition was eventually disposed off on 13 February 2008. The Division Bench recorded that the interim arrangement had continued for four years and in the event that there was any default by the petitioner, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. The petition was disposed off as infructuous.

¶34

Needles and Syringes manufactured at the manufacturing facility of the first petitioner are packed in boxes of 50/100 individual items. These boxes in turn are placed into cartons, each containing 10, 18 or 50 such boxes. On the products manufactured in India, on each individual sterilised pack of needles and/or syringes the first petitioner has affixed the unit of measurement both in milimeters, as well as, in inches and gauges. As regards goods imported from manufacturing locations worldwide, the products contain details such as the name and address of the importer, the selling price and the date of import on each shelf

¶35

*** 4 * W.P. 7116/2010**

¶36

carton containing 50 units. The labels on such cartons containing

¶37

the maximum retail price are affixed by the importer in India. Every box containing separate needles and syringes is sold as one box and individual units are not available separately for retail sale.

¶38

The fact that individual syringes or needles are not available for retail sale, is printed on each box.

¶39

On 23 July 2010 an inspection was carried out at the warehouse of the first petitioner when a seizure was effected both of locally made and imported products. On 11 August 2010 a notice

¶40

was issued to the petitioner referring to the seizure memo. The notice mentions four categories of products, two being imported and the remaining two, locally manufactured goods. The allegation is that the petitioner has prima-facie contravened Section 23 read with Rules 6(1) and 13 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Similar seizure memos dated 22 July, 2010 have been drawn up in respect of which, however, no notice has been issued as in the case of the first seizure memo.

¶41

The contention of the petitioner is that the individual syringes

¶42

or needles which are imported are placed in a box and the name

¶43

*** 5 * W.P. 7116/2010**

¶44

of the manufacturer and importer as well as the selling price and

¶45

the date of import is mentioned on each shelf carton containing 50/100 units. Individual units are not available for sale. As regards the locally produced goods, it has been submitted that each individual unit contains dimensions of the product in millimeters, as well as, in inches and gauges. The reference in inches and gauges is made since all standard textbooks for medical practitioners world over including in India, use inch and gauge as a standard unit of measure for needles and syringes. Besides, tender notices issued by several bodies to whom supplies are effected by petitioners, contain requirements in inches and gauges. According to the petitioner, this at highest is a disclosure of additional information under Rule 12(5) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1977.

¶46

The learned AGP has stated that a notice to show cause has

¶47

been issued to the petitioner on 11 August, 2010 in respect of the first seizure memo and hence it would be premature for this Court to adjudicate upon the merits of the rival contentions. We are in agreement with the submission of the learned AGP, that at this

¶48

*** 6 * W.P. 7116/2010**

¶49

stage, it would be appropriate and proper that the petitioner should file its representation in response to the notice to show cause dated

¶50

11 August, 2010. In respect of the seizure memos for which no notice to show cause has been yet issued to the petitioner, the second respondent would be at liberty to do so and if a notice is issued, the petitioner shall submit its reply within a period of 2 weeks of the receipt of the notice.

¶51

The second respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving to the petitioner, a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the meantime, we are of the view that the ends of justice would require a direction that no further seizures shall be effected by the second respondent on the grounds which have been set out in the seizure memos annexed to the writ proceedings. The material which is already under seizure is directed to be released by the second respondent to the petitioner after retaining samples of each batch that has been seized, for further investigation in accordance with law. In the event that a decision adverse to the petitioner is taken, no coercive steps should be taken for a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication

¶52

W.P. 7116/2010

¶53

*** 7 ***

¶54

of the order. The second respondent shall pass a reasoned order upon the representation, if any, that may be submitted by the petitioner in response to the notices to show cause. The petition is accordingly disposed off. There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶55

[Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J]

¶56

[Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]

Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parveen Chandna Vs Dean, Krishna Institute of Maedical Science and Ors.

Vithal Education and Research Institute Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

1. Smt. Kavita S. Motiramani and Anr. Vs 1. State of Mah. and Ors.