Allowed

M/s. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, company Regd under v. The Controller Legal Metrology, a.P., Weights and

Telangana HC1 Oct 2010WP/23653/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, a seed company challenged the seizure of packages for non-compliance with a labelling rule that had recently been amended. The court held that a Central Government circular deferred the enforcement of the new rule until 31-12-2007. Since the inspection occurred before that date, the court quashed the proceedings and declared the seizure illegal.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition allowed; the seizure of stock held to be not legal.

M/s. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, company Regd under Vs… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

¶2

Writ Petition No.23653 of 2007 Date 01-10-2010

¶3

Between : M/s.Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, Company regd. Under the Companies Act, 1956, rep. by its Asst.General manager Sri S.M.Khan, son of late Sri Abdus Sattar Khan, aged 66 years, NSL-ICON, # 8-2-648/2/A, 4^th Floor, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 034 .. Petitioner

¶4

And The Controller, Legal Metrology, A.P. Weights & Measures Department, Hyderabad and Others .. Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

¶6

Writ Petition No.23653 of 2007

¶7

ORDER :

¶8

The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of producing the seeds for the purpose of germination. The Company has got its processing plant at Kompally, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District licenced under the Seed Control Order, 1983. The seeds produced by the company are used as germination seed by the agriculturists.

¶9

On 18-06-2007, the second Respondent/District Inspector, Legal Metrology, Weights & Measures Department, H.Q.-III, Hyderabad, inspected the trading premises of the company at Kompally and found that the name and address of the Consumer Care Cell and its phone numbers were not printed on the packages in violation of Rule 6 (1A) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 issued in GSR No.622 (E), dated 26-09-1997 as amended in GSR 425 (E), dated 17-07-2006. Basing on the said inspection, the second respondent/District Inspector registered a case and issued Notice dated 18-07-2007 informing the company that the violation is compoundable under Section 73/65 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. Contending that the said notice is without jurisdiction and unsustainable, the company has filed this writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondents in seizing the seed packages as illegal and without jurisdiction and for a consequential direction to the respondents to release the seized packages.

¶10

Despite services of notice, none of the respondents have filed counter-affidavits. Heard Sri K.Ananda Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the 1^st Respondent.

¶11

The contravention alleged against the petitioner as per the notice dated 18-07-2007 is that on the packages name and address of the

¶12

Consumer Care Cell and its phone number were not printed and the said omission violates the provisions of Rule 6 (1A) of the Rules. The said Rule is as under :

¶13

“Every package shall bear the name, address, telephone number, E mail address, if available, of the person who can be or the office which can be, contacted, in case of consumer complaints..”

¶14

The said Rule was introduced by way of an amendment in GSR 425 (E), dated 17-07-2006 and the same came into effect from 13-012007. No doubt there appears to be omission on the part of the petitioner-company to print the name and other particulars on the packages as per the said Rule. However, it is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the publication of the rule, the Government of India having regard to the difficulties faced by the manufacturers to comply with the said Rule deferred the enforcement of the Rule and accordingly issued Circular No.WM-10(8)/2005, dated 05-07-2007. The said circular to the extent relevant is as follows :

¶15

“3. Taking into account the problems faced by the industry, Central Government has taken the following decisions: ( a ) Extra time may be permitted to manufacturers/Importers/retailers for liquidating their existing inventories of labels/packages. This is subject to the condition that no package that does not confirm to the provisions of amended Rules shall be sold or offered for sale after 31-12-2007. It will be incumbent upon manufacturers/importers to ensure appropriate linkages with their entire retail network to ensure compliance.

¶16

(b) Packages that are not found complying with the amended Rules and sold or offered for sale after 31-12-2007 will attract penal provisions under Section 63 of the Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976.

¶17

4. The enforcement authorities of your state may accordingly be advised to allow manufacturers/Importers/packers and dealers time up to 31-12-2007 for complying with labelling requirements under the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules. They may also be further advised not to launch prosecution or take other coercive action till that date and to utilize this time to educate the manufacturers/retailers etc.,

¶18

about the new requirements of law.

¶19

5. A question has also arisen about the status of packages manufactured prior to 14-1-2007. It is clarified that since the amendments to the Packaged Commodities Rules vide Notification dated 17-07-2006 became effective from 14-01-2007, packages that are manufactured/ imported/packed prior to that date (14-01-2007) will be exempt from the additional labelling requirements introduced vide Notification dated 17-07-2006.”

¶20

A perusal of the said Circular would show that the enforcement of the Rule was deferred till 31-12-2007. This Court in Criminal Petition No.1193 of 2008, dated 22-07-2010 taking note of the said circular quashed certain proceedings initiated against the petitioner-company for violation of Rule 6(1A). In the instant case, the inspection was made on 18-06-2007 i.e., prior to 31-12-2007. I am of the view that in view of the postponing of the application of the Rule up to 31-12-2007, it cannot be said that the petitioner-company has violated Rule 6(1A) of the Rules.

¶21

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed. The seizure of the stock is, therefore, held to be not legal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J.

¶23

01^st October, 2010. skmr

M/s. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, company Regd under v. The Controller Legal Metrology, a.P., Weights and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, company Regd under v. The Controller Legal Metrology, a.P., Weights and

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

T. narayana Reddy S/o T. Nagi Reddy Vs The District Collector, Kurnool

Syed Kareem Vali, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Chintha Ratna Kumari, Vs Commissioner of Police, and Addl. Dist Megistrarte

Sri Vennapusa Seshi Reddy, Vs The Principal Secretary

Syed Shakeel Quadri Vs The Deputy Commisisoner of Police, West Zone

Smt. Mujeebunissa Begum, Vs The Joint Collector