Allowed

Olx India B.V. v. the State of Haryana

Supreme Court8 Mar 20222022 INSC 2772022 INSC 277

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court quashed interim directions issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana requiring OLX India B.V. to attach ID proofs and property documents for advertisements. The Court held the directions were passed without hearing the appellant before this Court stayed the order pending its own consideration.

What did the court decide?

Interim directions of the High Court requiring attachment of ID proofs and property documents for advertisements on the OLX platform were quashed.

What the court decided

Olx India B.V. versus the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Supreme Court (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.378 OF 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.328 of 2022)

¶5

OLX INDIA B.V. …Appellant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. …Respondents

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

Leave granted.

¶10

This appeal challenges the order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No.14453 of 2021 (O&M) titled as “Pintu v. State of Haryana & Others”.

¶11

While dealing with the petition seeking issuance of directions to respondents Nos.2 to 4, namely, the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Dr. Mukesh Nasa Assistant Commissioner of Police, DLF Gurugram, and Station House Officer, Date: 2022.03.10 19:51:41 IST Reason: Police Station DLF, District Gurugram respectively, the High Court made

¶12

¶13

certain tentative observations against the OLX Group and directed that notice be issued to the newly added respondents Nos.5 to 8.

¶14

By way of an interim direction, the High Court further directed as under:

¶15

“It is further directed that all the advertisements on OLX platform be deleted and be re-listed only after attaching an open PDF file along with each advertisement, containing the following: -

¶16

(a) At least 02 ID proofs of the person, who is proposing to sell a property (moveable or immoveable) or asking any professional service.

¶17

(b) Two mobile numbers with a screen shot/photocopy of message sent by the server, who issued the SIM verifying name of owner as per their record.

¶18

(c) Details of the property to be sold whether moveable or immoveable and a document of title like Registration Certificate or insurance paper for vehicles or sale deed etc. for property.

¶19

(d) In aforesaid five Districts, in case the proposed seller is residing in a village or in the area of Municipal Corporation/Municipal Council, a certificate of Member of the Panchayat or Municipal Councillor certifying that the proposed seller is not involved in any such or similar criminal case and is a genuine owner of property.

¶20

(e) Only by putting this information in PDF file, the advertisements will be accepted by OLX or any other such agency and will be floated for the general public. Learned State counsel is directed to file the affidavit before the next date of hearing.”

¶21

Subsequently, by order dated 10.02.2022, respondents Nos.6 and 7 were

¶22

dropped from the array of parties and the correct name of respondent No.5 was substituted as OLX India B.V., i.e. the appellant herein.

¶23

¶24

Being aggrieved by the directions issued by the High Court, the instant appeal has been preferred.

¶25

At the interim stage, this Court by its order dated 10.01.2022 had stayed the effect and operation of the order passed by the High Court to the extent it had issued directions against the appellant.

¶26

We have heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, and Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. The original petitioner before the High Court though served has chosen not to enter appearance.

¶27

It is submitted by Mr. Luthra that all that the appellant does is to make available the services of an internet platform through which prospective vendors of goods and merchandise can issue appropriate advertisements soliciting responses from the intending purchasers and that as an internet platform or an intermediary, the appellant is not liable to guarantee the quality of the goods or merchandise which is put up for sale nor is it possible for the appellant to certify about the genuineness and correctness of the deal sought to be entered into. It is, therefore, submitted that the High Court ought not to have issued notice and issued interim directions.

¶28

¶29

Since the matter is pending consideration before the High Court, we do not enter into and deal with the submissions advanced by the appellant but leave the appellant to agitate all these issues before the High Court.

¶30

Insofar as the afore-quoted interim directions passed by the High Court, in our view, there was no occasion for the High Court to pass these directions; and more particularly, without hearing the appellant. We, therefore, quash the directions quoted hereinabove.

¶31

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶32

………………………………………………….J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT)

¶33

………………………………………………….J. (S. RAVINDRA BHAT)

¶34

………………………………………………….J. (PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)

¶35

New Delhi; March 08, 2022.

Olx India B.V. v. the State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Olx India B.V. v. the State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taqdir versus the State of Haryana

Sathish Kumar .a. @ Sathishkumar Anand @ Sathish Kumar Gupta versus State of Karnataka

Santosh versus the State of Uttar Pradesh

Sanjeev versus the State of Himachal Pradesh

Sartaj Khan versus the State of Uttarakhand Thru Prinicpal Secretary Home

Narinder Garg versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.