Narmadha SampathAssisted v. GayathriFor
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- BIS Act, 2016 s. 34
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority viz., Director General of Bureau within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such an appeal is filed…
Judgment
WP No. 34722 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19-11-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIWP No. 34722 of 2025ANDWMP NO. 38900 OF 2025,WMP NO. 38901 OF 2025,WMP NO. 43806 OF 2025,WMP NO. 33448 OF 2025,WMP NO. 33451 OF 2025,WP NO. 29826 OF 20251. M/s.Co Jewel Hallmarkings (p) LtdRep By Its Director. D.Madhusudhana Rao, Sai Krupa Complex, First Floor, 269 Karuppa Gounder Street, Coimbatore- 641 001. Petitioner(s)Vs1. The Hallmarking Officer (south)Bureau Of Indian Standards, Cit Campus, 4th Cross Road, Taramani, Chennai- 600 113.
The Deputy Director General (south)Bureau Of India Standards, Southern Regional Office, Cit Campus, 4th Cross Road, Taramani, Chennai- 600 113.
The Director GeneralBureau Of Indian Standards, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002.
Department Of Consumer AffairsFood And Public Distribution, Rep By Its Secretary, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 34722 of 2025 Respondent(s)WP No. 29826 of 20251. M/s. Co Jewel Hallmarkings (p) Ltd.,Rep. By Its Director, D.Madhusudhana Rao, Sai Krupa Complex, First Floor, 269 Karuppa Gounder Street, Coimbatore 641 001Petitioner(s)Vs1. The Halmarking Officer(south) Bureau Of Indian Standards, Cit Campus 4th Cross Road, Taramani Chennai 1132.The Deputy Director General (south)Bureau Of Indian Standards, Southern Regional Office, Cit Campus 4th Cross Road, Taramani Chennai 1133.The Director GeneralBureau Of Indian Standards, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 0024.Department Of Consumer AffairsFood And Public Distribution, Rep. By Its Secretary, Krishi Bhawan New Dlehi 110 001Respondent(s)WP No. 34722 of 2025PRAYERCalling for the record with respect to the Impugned order of suspension dated 30.04.2025 vide Ref.
NO.SRO/ RHMS/ R- 600 497 passed by the 1st Respondent, and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to function their hallmarking centre and pass.WP No. 29826 of 2025PRAYERcalling for the records with respect to the impugned order No. HMO/ SRO/ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 34722 of 2025AHC/ 2025- 26/ 11 dated 30.06.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent cancelling the Recognition R-600 497 issued to the petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to renew the license of the petitioner hallmarking centre and passFor Petitioner(s):Narmadha SampathAssisted by V. GayathriFor Respondent(s):M/s.Ragul Unnikrishnan For R1 To R3 Mr. K.K. MuralidharanCGSSC for R4COMMON ORDERThe learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner Company viz., M/s. Co Jewel Hallmarkings Pvt. Ltd. is running a Hallmark Centre for assaying and hallmarkings of gold jewellery / artefacts and is operating under BIS Licence No.600 497 from the year 2012.
2. While so, a surveillance audit and initial queries were conducted in the petitioner's Centre on 24.02.2025 by the first respondent. During the audit, the BIS Officer has raised few queries and instructed the petitioner to reply through email communication. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the first respondent, vide order dated 30.04.2025 suspended the hallmarking of the petitioner in terms of Section 12 (3) (i) of the BIS (Hallmarking) Regulations, 2018. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 34722 of 20253. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.34722 of 2025. Thereafter, the very same first respondent cancelled the licence for the hallmarking centre vide order dated 30.06.2025. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed another writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.29826 of 2025. 4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as against the impugned order of cancellation dated 30.06.2025, there is an effective appellate remedy available under Section 34 of the BIS Act, 2016. Hence, this Court may grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority viz., Director General of Bureau and file an appeal.
Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority viz., Director General of Bureau within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks thereafter, after conducting enquiry in terms of Section 34 of the BIS Act, 2016.
In terms of the above directions. both the writ petitions are disposed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 34722 of 2025of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.19-11-2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: YesNeutral Citation: Yes/NoabTo1.The Hallmarking Officer (south)Bureau Of Indian Standards, Cit Campus, 4th Cross Road, Taramani, Chennai- 600 113.2.The Deputy Director General (south)Bureau Of India Standards, Southern Regional Office, Cit Campus, 4th Cross Road, Taramani, Chennai- 600 113.3.The Director GeneralBureau Of Indian Standards, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002.4.Department Of Consumer AffairsFood And Public Distribution, Rep By Its Secretary, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.M.DHANDAPANI J. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 34722 of 2025abWP No. 34722 of 2025AND WMP NO. 38900 OF 2025,WMP NO. 38901 OF 2025,WMP NO. 43806 OF 2025,WMP NO. 33448 OF 2025,WMP NO. 33451 OF 2025,WP NO. 29826 OF 202519-11-2025
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.