Dismissed

Godfrey Philips India Ltd, v. Ministry of Health and Family

Madras HC25 Sept 2019WP/4133/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this disposed petition, the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the application challenging a notice to cancel a tobacco promotion show. The court held no further adjudication was required since the petitioner had voluntarily cancelled the event.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Godfrey Philips India Ltd, Vs Ministry of Health and… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.No.4133 of 2010

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶7

Godfrey Phillips India Limited, rep. byits J.Vajravelu, No.3-G, Gee Gee Emerald, No.312, Valluvar Kottam High road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. ... Petitioner /vs/ 1. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, rep. by the Secretary, Department of Health, Fort Saint George, Chennai 600 104. 2. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, No.359, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006 ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certitiorari to call for the records of the order dated 20.01.2010 bearing R.No.51910/STCC/08 issued by the second respondent and quash the same.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed challenging the notice issued by the second respondent directing the petitioner to cancel the show for promoting Tobacco products. The program is said to have been organised for promoting a Tobacco product scheduled to held on 23rd and 24th of January 2010.

¶9

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

¶10

As per the impugned notice, the above program has been organised in violation of Sections 5 and 22 of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, which is an offence punishable under Section 24 of the Act.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as per the notice issued by the second respondent , the petitioner-company cancelled the program and the event did not take place.

¶12

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the program had been cancelled, no further adjudication is required in the writ petition at this stage. However, in future if any such notice is sent to the petitioner for conducting such programs, it is always open to petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

¶13

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. s/dAssistant Registrar(CO) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar mrp To 1. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, rep. by the Secretary, Department of Health, Fort Saint George, Chennai 600 104. 2. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, No.359, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006 +1 CC to Mr.J. Sivanandaraaj, Advocate sr 82512 +1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 83198.

¶14

W.P.No. 4133 of 2010 PM(CO) SP(20/11/2019)

¶15

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

Godfrey Philips India Ltd, v. Ministry of Health and Family

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Godfrey Philips India Ltd, v. Ministry of Health and Family

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

Gold Quest International Pvt. Vs the Union Government of India

M/S Subhash Projects & Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Mrs.Malargodi Vs the Chairman, Tamilnadu Slum

A.Ajithadoss Vs the Gen.Mgr.(Telecom)

R.Venkatesh Vs the Deputy Director

S.Venkatraman, Vs the Revenue Secretary