KARNATAKA v. SMT. P.ANU CHENGAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 01 Jul 2021
- Bench
- SURA
Outcome
Dismissed
on part the petitioner, the petition is dismissed for
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016
Judgment
NO.835, SRIDEVI SHOPPING ARCADE 1ST FLOOR, NAGRATHPET BANGALORE-560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI KETAN S DHRUV AGED MAJOR
2. KARNATAKA STATE JEWELLERS FEDERATION NO.2828 TRIPLE-ESS HOUSE 6TH CROSS, 19TH MAIN, OFF AIRPORT ROAD HAL 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560008 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY DR SRI RAMACHARY AGED MAJOR
3. DIAMOND ASSOCIATION BANGALORE NO.32, 3RD FLOOR, S K ASHIRWAD NEHRU NAGAR, SHESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-560020 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SRI MANISH ASHOK JAIN AGED MAJOR
4. PADASHREE JEWELLERS BAZAR STREET NELAMANGALA BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-562123 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR B T GOVINDARAJU (BY SRI. P1-P4-ABSENT) RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50780 WP No. 14247 of 2021 AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS KRISHI BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110001
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS KRISHI BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110001
BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL NO.9 BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI-110002
BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR BANGALORE BRANCH, OPP JALAHALL METRO, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA 1ST STAGE, TUMKUR RD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR PEENYA, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560058 (BY SRI. B PRAMOD.,CGC FOR R1 & R2; SMT. P.ANU CHENGAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, QUASHING THE MANDATORY HALL MARKING OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND GOLD ARTEFACTS ORDER, 2020 ISSUED VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 15.01.2020 AT ANNEXURE-F AS BEING ULTRAVIRES AND CONTRARY TO THE BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS ACT, 2016 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50780 WP No. 14247 of 2021 ORAL ORDER
1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following relief: (a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, in the nature of Writ, quashing the Mandatory Hallmarking of Gold Jewellery and Gold Artefacts Order, 2020 issued vide Notification No. 205(E) dated 15.01.2020 at ANNEXURE F, as being ultravires and contrary to the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016; (b) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, in the nature of Writ, quashing the Mandatory Hallmarking of Gold Jewellery and Gold Artefacts (Second Amendment) Order 2020 issued vide Notification No. 2481(E) dated 23.06.2021 at ANNEXURE H, as being ultravires and contrary to the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016; (c) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, in the nature of Writ, quashing (Hallmarking) the Bureau of Regulations, 2018, issued vide Notification No. No.F.No.BS/11/05/2018 dated 14.06.2018, as being ultravires and contrary to the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016, which is placed at ANNEXURE-C; Indian Standards (d) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, in the nature of Writ, quashing the Indian Standards IS 1417:2016 dated November 2016 placed at ANNEXURE-D and Indian Standards IS 1417:2016 as amended on 1st July 2021 placed at Annexure-E, as being ultravires and contrary to the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016; (e) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, in the nature of Writ, quashing the Notification No.S.O.2421 (E) dated 14.06.2018 placed at Annexure-J as being ultravires and contrary to the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50780 WP No. 14247 of 2021 (f) Direct the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 Authorities to frame transition guidelines prior to the implementation of any hallmarking regulations; (g) Pass such other order or direction as deemed fit and proper by facts and circumstances of the case. this Hon'ble Court
2. Sri. Madhu N. Rao., learned counsel who had appearred for the petitioner had been permitted to retire vide order dated 23.11.2024. Thereafter no arrangement has been made to be represented by the petitioner.
Operative part
3. The submission of learned counsel respondents No.3 and 4 is that the prayers which have been sought for in the above petition have been rendered infructuous. Since there is no appearance on part the petitioner, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: on part the petitioner, the petition is dismissed for
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 01 Jul 2021. The bench was SURA.
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.