Titan company Limited v. l.Unionoflndla

Pefition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the -lhe affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be circumstances stated in pleased to issue a writ or writs, one more particularly in the nature of a writ of [\/andamus, deilaring the action of the Respondent No 3 in seizing the Petitioners goods under Panchanama in case No. 117lPCl2O19, (Panchanama S1 No.11099) and Panchanama dated 17th August,2019 in case. No. /PC/19 (in Panchanama 51.No. Nil), daled 171O8t2O19 followed by issuing the letter dated 3)t}gt2}lg bearing Lr. No. 83tPC 2019-20 against the Petitioner as being arbitrary, in violation of the principles of natural justice, violation of Articles 14 and t 9(1Xg) of the constitution of lndia and in breach of the provisions of the Legal lVletrology Act, 2009, and consequen y set aside the same. |.A.NO:1 OF 2019 Petition Under section 1si cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct. the Respondent No.3 or its officers or agents to forthwith release the seized goods under Panchanama in case No. 117tpct2o1g, (panchanama SL No.11Osg) and Panchanama in case. No. /pc/19 (in panchanama Sr. No. Nir), daled 1710812019, back to the petitioner. l.A.NO:2 OF 2019 Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the letter bearing Lr. No. g3/pc 2o1g-20, dated 30/09/2019, incruding raunching and / or initiating any regar proceedings, civil or criminal, whatsoever pursuant to or in imprementation of the Legar metrology Act, 2009 or the Legal Metrology (packaged Commodity) Rules, 20.1 1, against the Petitioner or its Directors / officers by the Respondent No. 3 or its officers or agents. |.A.NO:S OF 20 20 Between 1 2 JI'g S_!q19 o_f Tetangana, Represented.by the Controiler of Legat Metrotogy 209, PWD Buitding, Gandhinagar, Hydeiabad (TS) - StO OeO. The District lnspector, Legal fVletroto€y, Hq. VIl, Hyderabad, 209, pWD Building, Gandhinagar. Hyderabad (iSl _ dOO OAol -- - .....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND l.Titan Company Limited.,.n"^qr]qry! Office at 3, StpCOT Industriat Comptex, Hosur, Tamil Nadu State (lN) - 6-35 126 I And its Corporate Office situated at. lntegrity, No.193, Veerasandra, Electronic City PO, Off. Hosur main Road, Bengaluru - 560100 Represented by its Senior Manager - Legal [Vlr. Ramesh Bhat. K .....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

2.Union of lndia, Represented by the Director, Legal Metrology, Department of Consumer Affairs. lvlinistry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution 461-A, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 0114- (Respondent No.2 is not necessary party in this petition) ....RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 22.11.20'19 passed in lA No.2i2019 in WP No.25830/2019 and dismiss the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.SANJAY KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.SHREYAS REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (SC FOR CENTRL GOW) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : G.P FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI ORDER: W.P.NO.25830 0F 2019 This writ petition is hled seeking to declare the action of respondent No.3 in seizing the petitioner's goods under Panchanama in Case No.ll7 /PCl2Ol9, (Panchanama SI No. 11O99) dated 17.O8.2019 by issuing a letter dated 3O.O9.2019 bearing Lr.No.83/PC 2Ol9-2O to the petitioner demanding the petitioner to pay the compounded fee within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, as illegal and arbitrary and in breach of the provisions of the Legal Metrologr Act, 2OO9 and consequently to set aside the same, and to pass such further order or orders.

2. Brief'facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Company r,r.hich is engaged in various businesses and one of the business is sale of Sarees, blouses and lehengas ol premium quality under its brand name "Taneira". Accordingly, it has set up retail outlets with the same name across the Country. In Hyderabad, it has settup its "Taneira" retail outlet at H.No.8-3- 293ll74l14lG9, BNR Colony, Road No. 14, Banjara Hilss, Hyderabad and was carrying on the said business. It is submitted that on 17.O8.2O19, the respondent No.3 visited the ) ) 2 Taneira Store and inspected the garments offered by the petitioner's Compa-ny for sale. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has resorted to seizure of 1O Sarees and 5lehengas on the ground that they are being sold in violation of Provisions under the Legal Metrologr (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 201 1 . The said provisions pertain to penalties concerning pre-packaged commodities under the Legal Metrologz Act,2OO9 (the "LM Act"). The seizure was under panchanama dated 17.08.2019 ald an undertaking was obtained from the store manager that he would not sell or dispose of the seized sarees ald lehengas. Thereafter, the letter dated 3O.O9.2O19 was issued stating that the offence was compoundable and to pay the compounding fee within a period of seven days therefrom. However, challenging the action of seizure and the subsequent notice dated

30.09.2019, the present writ petition has been hled.

3. Learned counsel lor the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court through the labels of the products put up for sale which are plaped at Pages No.23 to 25 to demonstrate that all the necessary and prescribed details such as name of the manufacturer, the name of the product, the quality of the product or the origin including the measurement of the saree I 3 t- aud price of the saree, are all mentioned on the lahcl He further submitted that there is no violalion of the provisions of the Legal Metrologr Act, 2O09. He further refers to notiflcation of the Central Government dated 16. 12.2O16, wherein, it is clearly mentionecl that the labeling requirements for garments sold in loosc form in retail stores may include declaration containing the name and description of the product, the size internationally recognized, MRP, name and futl address of the manufacturer' He further submitted that there is no violation of this notification also by the petilioner' He also referred to subsequent notlllcation issued by the Central Government on

31.03.2017, wherein it has been clarihed that loose garments which are sold after the consumer sees them lor Style/ Design, tries them for fit and touches them for feel oi the Fabric/Fiber etc., is not a pre-packaged commodity if the samc garment is delivered to the customer. He submitled that this circular also clarihes the legal position. Therefore, according to him, the seizure was unwarranted and is not sustainablc. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case l o1 A & M Mauritz Retait Prtt. Ltd. us I*gaI Metrologg 4 't Department cout. of NCT of Delhil on the meaning of pre- packaged commodities under the Legal Metrologv Act, 2OO9

4. Learned Government pleader for Civrl Supplies, on the other hand, relied upon the averments made in the counter aflidavit and submitted that Section 2 (t) ot rhe Legal Metrology Act, 2OO9 defines ,,pre packaged Commodiff,, and since the sarees and lehengas which are solcl by the petitioner are packaged and did not contain the prescribed details on the labels, they have been seized. He further submitted that the did not bear thc declaration of Name, Designation, Address and Telephone numbers of the person who is to be contacted in case of consumer complaints as prescribed in Rule 6 (2) and 18 (1) of the Legal Metrologr of (packaged commodities) Rules, 2O1l read with Sections 1g/36 and 49 of the Legal Metrolory Act, 2OOq and Lherefore, accorcling to him, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. seized packages 5 Learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the Central Government ls also heard I I 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4380 5

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court hnds that Section 2(t) of the Legal Metrolory Act defines 'pre-package commodity' as under: 'Pre-Packaged Commoditg' means o commoditg which without the purchaser being present is placed in a package of whateuer nadfie, ulether sealed or not, so thot the product contained therein has o pre-detennined quantitA.

7. However, uide notlfication dated 76.12'2016, Lhe Governmenl of India has issued arr Advisory for enforcement of provisions of Rules for Readymade Garments/Hosiery products' It is providcd that the mandatory labeling requirements under the Legal Metrologr (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 20 1 1 are applicable only for pre-packed commodities, dehned under Section 2(t) of the Legal Metrologr Act, 2OO9 and that the mandatory tabeling requirements for pre-packed commodities are therefore not applicable to garments sold in loose form and that the labeling requirements for garments sold in loose form in retail stores may include only the following declaration w'e'f'

01.o7 .2017 (a) Name/ Description of the product; I \ 6 *f (b) Size: Internationally recognizable size indicators - S' M, L, xL, etc., along with details in metric notation in terms of cm or m as case maY be; (c) MRP; (d) Name, Full address and Customer Care Number of the manufacturer.

8. In the case of readymade garments sold to consumers in pre-packaged form, declarations required under the Rules may tre made and the size of the garments needs to bc mentioned in metres or centimeters, as the case may be and any additional detail such as Small, Medium' Large' XL' XXL' etc., may be treated as additional declaration' g. This Court finds that this Advisory has further been clarihed vide letter dated 31'O3'2O17 holding that loose garments which are sold after consumer sees them for style/design, tries them on for fit and touches them for feel of the fabric/hber etc., is not a pre-packaged commodity if the same garment is delivered to the consurner' Thus' it is noticed thatthedetailsrequiredunderRule6(2)ofthel,egalMetroloSr (Packaged Commodities) Rules of 2011 is not applicable to the '1 garmdlts seized from the petitioner' However' even otherrvise' 7 this Court hnds that the petitioner has fulhlled the said condition by giving the details about the sarees length, make of the sarees, brand and also the material and the manufacturer is mentioned as "Taneira" Company Limited and the email address of the sard company is mentioned thereunder. Therefore, even though the said rr.le is not applicable, this Court is satished that the requirements of the Legal Metrologr Act have been lulfilled by the petitioner company.

10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the seized commodit5r to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY//. t- . SRINIVASA REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR \ sEcrtoru oFFtcER To Telangana at Hyderabad (TS) - 500 080.

1. The Director, Union of lndia, Legal [\rletrology, Ddp'artment of Consumer nffaiL. Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution 461-A, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 O114- Z. ffre Controriel of Legal Metrology, 209, PWD Building, Gandhinagar, State of a. fne o]itrict lnsp'ector, Leg)l Metrology, Hq. Vl! Hyderabad, 209, PWD +. iwo C6;s to G.P F6R CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court for the State of 5. One iC to SRt sHRevRs REDDY. Advocate [oPUC] 6. one cc to sRl GADI PRXVL-EN XUr\/rAniov'sollciToR GENERAL OF Building, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad (Tq) - 599 0^80 Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) rNDrA)IOPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies SA GJP hy i lrrr s14 re ol.' i) / .) ,.) 21 T|JE AE t D; ((\ (' ), 2 .a .)i HIGH COURT DATED:31 10712025 ORDER WP.No.25830 of 2019 ALLOWTNG THE VY.P WITHOUT COSTS. \0 1 ol) q\