Allowed

Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal v. M/s Philips Electronics India Ltd. 7, J.C.M Road

Telangana HC21 Nov 2012WA/1445/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal by the Government of Andhra Pradesh challenged the Single Judge’s order declaring the seizure of Philips DVD players illegal for alleged labeling violations under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The appeal against the sustenance of the seizure was dismissed, though costs were deleted.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is allowed in part; the part of the order awarding costs of Rs. 10,000 is deleted; no costs to the State.

Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

Writ Appeal No. 1445 of 2012

¶3

DATED:21.11.2012

¶4

Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary, Legal Metrology Department, Hyderabad and others.

¶5

… Appellants

¶6

And M/s. Philips Electronics India Ltd., India and others.

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶9

Writ Appeal No. 1445 of 20112

¶10

Judgment: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶11

This writ appeal is directed against order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 33904 of 2012.

¶12

The respondents-writ petitioners filed the aforementioned writ petition seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the seizure of two packages containing Philips DVD Video Player bearing Model No. DVP 3868X/94, manufactured by respondent No.1 from the custody of respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

It appears that two notices dated 16.6.2012 and 18.9.2012 were issued by the authorities for violation of certain Sections of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶14

The Hon’ble Single Judge after perusing the said statutory provisions of the Act in question, came to the conclusion that the product being dealt with by the respondent No.2 conforms to the statutory provisions relating to affixing of the labels and hence the very seizure of the said product is liable to be declared as illegal and on that ground, His Lordship allowed the aforementioned writ petition with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

¶15

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, this appeal has been preferred by the State authorities.

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after

¶17

perusing the statutory provisions, which have been stated in the Act and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, we are of the view that the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶18

However, in so far as the costs of Rs.10,000/-, which have been awarded by His Lordship while allowing the writ petition are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners has fairly submitted that the respondents-writ petitioners do not wish to press with regard to payment of costs.

¶19

Accordingly, we delete that part of the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge, through which His Lordship awarded costs of Rs.10,000/- and allow the appeal to that extent.

¶20

The writ appeal is allowed in part. No costs.

¶21

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶22

______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J 21-11-2012

¶23

pnb

Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal v. M/s Philips Electronics India Ltd. 7, J.C.M Road

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal v. M/s Philips Electronics India Ltd. 7, J.C.M Road

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

Bellapukonda Hari Krishna, S/o. Nageswara Rao Vs Bellapukonda Mayuri, D/o Harikrishna

V.Radha Krishna Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs M/s Sri Srinivasa Saw Mill and Timber Depot, Madira

Sri Mysamma Indane Gramin Vitrak Indane Distributor Vs The Commissioner

G. Purnachandra Rao, Vs The Central Cooperative Registrar, Ministry of Agriculture

K.M. Rao, E-490111, Conductor Vs The Apsrtc.