Dismissed

R.Prem Kumar, v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC11 Jan 2016WP/840/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought directions for stringent action and bans against beverage manufacturers for alleged external particles. The Court held the petition was not a public interest litigation and suggested civil remedies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. No costs. Related miscellaneous petitions were closed.

R.Prem Kumar, Vs The Secretary to Government — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.01.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

W.P.No.840 of 2016

¶6

and WMP.Nos.661 & 662 of 2016

¶7

R.Prem Kumar .. Petitioner vs 1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Health & Family Welfare Department, The Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Food Safety, The Department of Food Safety, 5^th Floor, DMS Office Building, No.259, Anna Salai, DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006. 3.Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, B-91, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110 064. 4.South India Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, B163-170, Sipcot Industrial Growth Centre, NH-7, Gangai Kondan Village, Tirunelveli District, Tamil Nadu-627 352. 5.Reliance Market, A Division of Reliance Retail Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Door No.83/1, Thiruneer Malai Road, Nagalkeni, Chennai-600 086. .. Respondents

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate necessary and severe action as against the respondents 3 to 5 on the basis of the petitioner's (through counsel) representation dated 10.12.2015, including the banning of the products of the 3^rd respondent bottled by the 4^th respondent.

¶10

This is not a petition to be entertained as public interest litigation and is only an endeavour before us to give publicity for the petitioner. If truly the petitioner is aggrieved by any external particles being found in the product, an aspect which has been traversed in the reply notice stating that the product is tampered due to an external force, appropriate proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act or for damages etc. as per law can be availed of by the petitioner. 2. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WMP.Nos.661 and 662 of 2016 are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶11

1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Health & Family Welfare Department, The Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

2.The Commissioner of Food Safety, The Department of Food Safety,

¶14

5^th Floor, DMS Office Building, No.259, Anna Salai, DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.

¶15

+1cc to Mr.S.Anil Sandeep, Advocate, S.R.No. 2564 +1cc to The Government Pleader sr.2328

¶16

W.P.No.840 of 2016

¶17

msm(CO) srg(27/01/2016)

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Prem Kumar, v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Prem Kumar, v. The Secretary to Government

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

Gilbert Sundarraj Samuel Vs Savithiri

Mallika Vs Ravikumar

R.Arun Vs Moni

Mrs. R.Fathima, Vs The Chief Secretary

G.Devarajan Vs The Chief Election

V.Narayanan @ Americai Vs The State of Tamil Nadu