2017 Supreme(Kar) 1315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.S. PATIL, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
THE TABOCCO INSTITUTE OF INDIA, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE, NEW DELHI, REP. BY S.M. AHMAD - DIRECTOR & SECRETARY GENERAL & OTHERS – PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE CABINET SECRETARY, CABINET SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, RASHTRAPATI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI & OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
W.P. No. 4470 of 2015 (GM-RES) c/w W.P. Nos. 56789, 59460 & 59587 of 2014, 53876-877 of 2015, 27715-716, 31838, 33042, 100996, 101879, 103356, 103391, 103417, 103517-518, 103519, 103520, 103521-522, 103744, 103796 & 103978, 103797 & 103977, 103873-874, 103875-876, 103877-878, 103970-971, 34184, 34185, 34186, 34188, 34189, 34190, 34191, 34192, 34193, 35716, 35717, 35718, 35719, 35720, 35721, 35722, 35723, 35724, 35725, 35726, 35727 & 35728 of 2016
Prayer:
(Writ Petition No.4470/2015 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned Notification Dt.15.10.2014 (Annex-A) issued by R-2 as being illegal, Invalid, Void Ab Initio and Ultra Vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply & Distribution) Act 2003 and Ultra Vires Articles 14,19[1][A] And 19[1][G] of the Constitution of India and as contrary to the Trademarks Act 1999, the Legal Metrology [Packaged Commodities] Rules 2011 and Notification 1272/1962 issued Under Trademarks Law & etc.
Writ Petition No.56789/2014 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned notification Dtd.15.10.2014 (Annex-A) issued by R-2 as Being, Illegal, Invalid, Void Ab Initio and Ultra Vires The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply & Distribution) Act 2003 and Ultra Vires Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India & Etc.
Writ Petition No.59460/2014 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned Notification Dtd.15.10.2014 (Annex-A) issued by R-2 as being, illegal, invalid, Void Ab Initio and Ultra Vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition Of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply & Distribution) Act 2003 and Ultra Vires Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India & Etc.
Writ Petition No.59587/2014 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned Notification Dtd.15.10.2014 (Annex-A) issued by Respondent Being Unconstitutional, Ultra Vires, Illegal, Without Jurisdiction, Bad in Law and Null and Void & Etc.
Writ Petition Nos.53876-53877/2015 are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned Notification Dtd.15.10.2014 (Annex-A) issued by Respondent No.1 as being, Illegal, Invalid, Void Ab Initio and Ultra Vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply & Distribution) Act 2003 and Ultra Vires Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India & Etc.
Writ Petition Nos.27715-27716/2016 are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, quash the Notification Dated 15.10.2014 Vide Annex-C, issued by R-2 Herein, and Notification Dated 24.09.2015 Vide Annexure-E, issued by R-2 as being, Illegal, Invalid, Void Ab Initio and Ultra Vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement And Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 Ultra Vires Articles 14, 19(1)(A) And19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India and as Contrary to the Trademarks Act, 1999, The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and Notification 1272/1962 issued under Trademarks Law and Etc.
Writ Petition Nos.31838/2016 & 33042/2016 are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India to declare that the provisions of the rule 3, rule 4, rule 5 and schedule thereto of the cigarettes and other Tobacco Products [packaging and labelling] rules, 2008 as amended by [amendment] rules, 2014 vide Annex-B is Ultra Vires as the said provisions are violative of Article 13, 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and that it is not saved by Article 304 of the Constitution of India and is contrary to the Trademarks Act, 1999 and/ or the legal metrology [packaged commodities] rules, 2011 and Etc.
Writ Petition No.100996/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Praying to Quash the Notification Dated:15.10.2014 Vide (Annexure-B) and Dated:24.09.2015 (Annexure-D) issued by Respondent No.2 as being, illegal, invalid, void Ab Initio and Ultra Vires the Cigarettes and other tobacco products (Prohibition of Advertisment and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply And Distribution) Act, 2003, Ultra Vires Articles 14, 19(1)(A), 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India and as Contrary to the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011 Adn Notification 1272/1962 issued under Trademarks Law and Etc.
Writ Petition No.101879/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Notification Dated:15.10.2014 issued by the Respondent No.1, Vide Annexure-A And Notification Dated:24.09.2015, issued by Respondent No.1, Vide Annexure-C as being Illegal, Invalid, Void, Ab Initio And Ultra Vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisment and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply And Distribution) Act, 2003, Ultra Vires Articles 14, 19(1)(A) and 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India and as Contrary to The Trademarks Act, 1999, The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and Etc.
Writ Petition No.103356/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Praying to Quash the Notification Dated:15th October 2014 (Annexure-A) and Notification Dated:24th September 2015 (Annexure- C) issued by Respondent No.2, being, Illegal, Invalid, Void Ab Initio and Ultra Vires The Cigaretes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003; and Ultra Vires the Constitution of India; and as Contrary to the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 & Etc.
Writ Petition No.103391/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Praying to Quash the Notification Dated:15.10.2014 (Annexure-A) and Notification Datd:24.09.2015 (Annexure-C) Issued By Respondent No.2, as being illegal, invalid, Void Ab Initio and Ultra Vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commernce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 And Ultra Vires the Constitution of India, and As Contrary to The Trademarks Act, 1999, The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011 & Etc.
Writ Petition No.103417/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Notification Dated:15.10.2014 (Annexure-A) and Notification Datd:24.09.2015 (Annexure-C) Issued By Respondent No.2, as being illegal, Invalid, Void Ab Initio and Ultra Vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commernce, Production, Supply And Distribution) Act, 2003 and Ultra Vires The Constitution of India, and As Contrary To The Trademarks Act, 1999, the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011 & Etc.
Writ Petition Nos.103517-518/2016 are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Quash the Notification Dated:15.10.2014, Vide Annexure-C, issued by the Respondent No.2 Herein, and Notification Dated:24.09.2015, Vide Annexure-E issued by Respondent No.2 as being illegal, invalid, Void, Ab Initio and Ultra Vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisment and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, Ultra Vires Articles 14, 19(1)(A) And 19(1)(G) Of the Constitution of India and as Contrary to The Trademarks Act, 1999, The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and Notification 1272/1962 issued under Trademarks Law & Etc.
Writ Petition No.103519/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Quash the Notification Dated:15.10.2014, Vide Annexure-C, issued by the Respondent No.2 Herein, and Notification Dated:24.09.2015, Vide Annexure-E, issued By Respondent No.2 as Being Illegal, Invalid, Void Ab Initio and Ultra Vires The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisment and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply And Distribution) Act, 2003, Ultra Vires Articles 14, 19(1)(A) And 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India and as Contrary to The Trademarks Act, 1999, The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and Notification 1272/1962 issued Under Trademarks Law & Etc.
Writ Petition No.103520/2016 Is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Quash the Notification Dated:15.10.2014, Vide Annexure-C, issued by Respondent No.2 Herein, and Notification Dated:24.09.2015, Vide Annexure-E, issued by Respondent No.2, as being Illegal, Invalid, Void, Ab Initio and Ultra Vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisment and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, Ultra Vires Articles 14, 19(1)(A) and 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India and as Contrary to the Trademarks Act, 1999, The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and Notification 1272/1962 issued Under Trademarks Law & Etc.
Writ Petition Nos.103521-522/2016 are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Notification Dated:15.10.2014, issued by Respondent No.1 Vide Annexure-B, and Notification Dated:24.09.2015, issued by Respondent No.1, Vide Annexure-D, as Being Illegal, Invalid, Void, Ab Initio and Ultra Vires The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisment and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, Ultra Vires Articles 14, 19(1)(A) And 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India and as Contrary to the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 And Notification 1272/1962 Issued Under Trademarks Law & Etc.
Writ Petition No.103744/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Notification Dated:15.10.2014,(Annexure-A) and Notification Dated:24.09.2015 (Annexure-C), issued by Respondent No.2 as being Illegal, Invalid, Void, Ab Initio and Ultra Vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisment and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, Ultra Vires the Constitution of India and as Contrary to the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 & Etc.
Writ Petition Nos.103796 & 103978/2016 are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Quash the Notification Dated 15th October, 2014 Bearing G.S.R. 727(E) Vide Annexure B, issued by the Respondent No.1 Herein, and Notification Bearing No. G.S.R. 739 (E) Dated 24.09.2015 Vide Annexure D, issued by Respondent No.1 & Etc.
Writ Petition Nos.103797 & 103977/2016 Are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Praying to Quash the Notification Dated 15th October, 2014 Bearing G.S.R. 727(E) Vide Annexure C, issued by the Respondent No.2 Herein, and Notification Bearing No. G.S.R. 739 (E) Dated 24.09.2015 Vide Annexure E, issued by Respondent No.2, & Etc.
Writ Petition Nos.103873-874/2016 are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Notification Dated 15th October, 2014 Bearing G.S.R. 727(E) Vide Annexure C, issued by the Respondent No.2 Herein, and Notification Bearing No. G.S.R. 739 (E) Dated 24.09.2015 Vide Annexure E, issued by Respondent No.2, & Etc.
Writ Petition Nos.103875-876/2016 are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Notification Dated 15th October, 2014 Bearing G.S.R. 727(E) Vide Annexure C, issued by the Respondent No.2 Herein, and Notification Bearing No. G.S.R. 739 (E) Dated 24.09.2015 Vide Annexure E, issued By Respondent No.2, & Etc.
Writ Petition Nos.103877-878/2016 are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Notification Dated 15th October, 2014 Bearing G.S.R. 727(E) Vide Annexure C, issued by the Respondent No.2 Herein, and Notification Bearing No. G.S.R. 739 (E) Dated 24.09.2015 Vide Annexure E, issued by Respondent No.2, & Etc.
Writ Petition Nos.103970-971/2016 are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Notification Dated 15th October, 2014 Bearing G.S.R. 727(E) Vide Annexure C, issued by the Respondent No.2 Herein, and Notification Bearing No. G.S.R. 739 (E) Dated 24.09.2015 Vide Annexure E, issued by Respondent No.2, & Etc.
Writ Petition Nos.34184/2016 are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Notification Dated:15.10.2014 Vide Annexure-P2, and Notification Dated:24.09.2015 Vide Annexure-P4 issued by Respondent No.1, as being Illegal, Invalid, Void, Ab Initio and Ultra Vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisment and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, Ultra Vires Articles 14, 19(1)(A) And 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India and as Contrary to the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and Notification 1272/1962 issued under Trademarks Law & Etc.
Writ Petition No.34185/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Notification Dated 15.10.2014 and Notification Dated 24.09.2015 & Etc.
Writ Petition No.34186/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Seizures of the Goods and The Seizure Orders, Reports and Panchanamas in Relation thereto Being Exhibits 'A', 'B' & 'C', Hereto, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.34188/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Seizures of the Goods and The Seizure Orders, Reports and Panchanamas in Relation thereto Being Exhibits 'A', 'B' & 'C', Hereto, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.34189/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Notification Dated:15.10.2014 Vide Exhibit-A, and Notification Dated:24.09.2015 Vide Exhibit-B issued by Respondent No.1, as Being Illegal, Invalid, Void, Ab Initio and Ultra Vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, Ultra Vires Articles 14, 19(1)(A) and 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India and as Contrary to the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and Notification 1272/1962 issued under Trademarks Law & Etc.
Writ Petition No.34190/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Notification Dated 15.10.2014 Vide Annexure-P1 and Notification Dated 24.09.2015 Vide Annexure-P2, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.34191/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned Notification Bearing G.S.R.727 (E) Dated 15th October, 2014 and Notification Bearing G.S.R. 739(E) Dt.24th September 2015 being Unreasonable, Arbitrary and Irrational, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.34192/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned Notification Bearing G.S.R.727 (E) Dated 15th October, 2014 and Notification Bearing G.S.R. 739(E) Dt.24th September 2015 being Unreasonable, Arbitrary and Irrational, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.34193/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Notification Bearing G.S.R.727 (E) Dated 15th October, 2014 and Notification Bearing G.S.R. 739(E) Dt.24th September 2015 being Unreasonable, Arbitrary and Irrational & Etc.
Writ Petition No.35716/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Declare that Rules 3, 4 & 5 and Schedule Thereto of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 as Amended by (Amendment) Rules, 2014 is Ultra Vires as the Said Provisions are Violative of Articles 13, 14 & 19 and that it is not saved by Article 304 of the Constitution of India and is Contrary to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and/or the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodites) Rules, 2011, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.35717/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Declare that Rules 3, 4 & 5 and Schedule thereto of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 as Amended by (Amendment) Rules, 2014 is Ultra Vires as the Said Provisions are Violative of Articles 13, 14 & 19 and that it is not saved by Article 304 of the Constitution of India and is Contrary to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and/or the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodites) Rules, 2011, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.35718/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Declare that Rules 3, 4 & 5 and Schedule thereto of the Cigarettes and Other tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 as Amended by (Amendment) Rules, 2014 is Ultra Vires as the Said Provisions are Violative of Articles 13, 14 & 19 and that it is not saved by Article 304 of the Constitution of India and is Contrary to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and/or the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodites) Rules, 2011, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.35719/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Declare that Rules 3, 4 & 5 and Schedule thereto of the Cigarettes and Other tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 as Amended by (Amendment) Rules, 2014 is Ultra Vires as the Said Provisions are Violative of Articles 13, 14 & 19 and that it is not saved by Article 304 of the Constitution of India and is Contrary to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and/or the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodites) Rules, 2011, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.35720/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Declare that Rules 3, 4 & 5 and Schedule thereto of the Cigarettes and Other tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 as Amended by (Amendment) Rules, 2014 is Ultra Vires as the Said Provisions are Violative of Articles 13, 14 & 19 and that it is not saved by Article 304 of the Constitution of India and is Contrary to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and/or the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodites) Rules, 2011, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.35721/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Declare that Rules 3, 4 & 5 and Schedule thereto of the Cigarettes and Other tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 as Amended by (Amendment) Rules, 2014 is Ultra Vires as the Said Provisions are Violative of Articles 13, 14 & 19 and that it is not saved by Article 304 of the Constitution of India and is Contrary to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and/or the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodites) Rules, 2011, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.35722/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Declare that Rules 3, 4 & 5 and Schedule thereto of the Cigarettes and Other tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 as Amended by (Amendment) Rules, 2014 is Ultra Vires as the Said Provisions are Violative of Articles 13, 14 & 19 and that it is not saved by Article 304 of the Constitution of India and is Contrary to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and/or the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodites) Rules, 2011, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.35723/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Declare that Rules 3, 4 & 5 and Schedule thereto of the Cigarettes and Other tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 as Amended by (Amendment) Rules, 2014 is Ultra Vires as the Said Provisions are Violative of Articles 13, 14 & 19 and that it is not saved by Article 304 of the Constitution of India and is Contrary to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and/or the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodites) Rules, 2011, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.35724/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Declare that Rules 3, 4 & 5 and Schedule thereto of the Cigarettes and Other tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 as Amended by (Amendment) Rules, 2014 is Ultra Vires as the Said Provisions are Violative of Articles 13, 14 & 19 and that it is not saved by Article 304 of the Constitution of India and is Contrary to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and/or the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodites) Rules, 2011, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.35725/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Declare that Rules 3, 4 & 5 and Schedule thereto of the Cigarettes and Other tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 as Amended by (Amendment) Rules, 2014 is Ultra Vires as the Said Provisions are Violative of Articles 13, 14 & 19 and that it is not saved by Article 304 of the Constitution of India and is Contrary to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and/or the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodites) Rules, 2011, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.35726/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that Rules 3, 4 & 5 and schedule thereto of the cigarettes and other tobacco products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 as Amended by (Amendment) Rules, 2014 is Ultra Vires as the said provisions are violative of Articles 13, 14 & 19 and that it is not saved by article 304 of the Constitution of India and is Contrary to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and/or the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodites) Rules, 2011, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.35727/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that Rules 3, 4 & 5 and schedule thereto of the cigarettes and other tobacco products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 as Amended by (Amendment) Rules, 2014 is Ultra Vires as the said provisions are violative of Articles 13, 14 & 19 and that it is not saved by Article 304 of the Constitution of India and is contrary to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and/or the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodites) Rules, 2011, & Etc.
Writ Petition No.35728/2016 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that Rules 3, 4 & 5 and Schedule thereto of the Cigarettes and Other tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 as Amended by (Amendment) Rules, 2014 is Ultra Vires as the said provisions are violative of Articles 13, 14 & 19 and that it is not saved by Article 304 of the Constitution of India and is contrary to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and/or the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodites) Rules, 2011, & Etc.)
Decided On : 15-12-2017

Headnote:

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Articles 14, 19(1)(g) - Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act (34 of 2003), Sections 5, 7, 9, 31 & Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labeling) Rules (2008), Rr. 3(1)(b), 4, 5 [as amended by Amendment Rules (2014)] - Constitutional validity of amended Rules - Specified health warning on cigarettes and other tobacco products - Period of rotation - Amended Rules providing for grace period not exceeding two months to clear old stock - There is total prohibition in presenting packages containing old image from being released by manufacturers after expiry of rotation period and grace period - Non-application of mind by rule making authority, hitting bona fide traders and thereby affecting their economics - Amended Rules to extent of rotation period held, manifestly arbitrary.

        [Per B. S. Patil, J]: Definition of expression 'specified warning' to mean such warnings against use of cigarettes or other tobacco products to be printed, painted or inscribed on packages of cigarettes or other tobacco products in such form and manner as may be prescribed by Rules made under COTPA would clearly show that there is ample power given to Central Government to prescribe by way of rules such warnings against use of cigarettes as Central Government deems fit to implement and enforce object and purpose of COTPA. It is not for Court to sit in judgment as to which type of warnings have to be permitted to be prescribed by making rules. It is also neither advisable, nor possible for Court to embark upon an enquiry to find out whether warnings prescribed by Rules are gruesome, false depiction or untrue. It is no doubt true that this exercise is required to be undertaken by rule making authority by applying its mind to relevant factors keeping in mind nature and scope of its powers and object sought to be achieved by enactment. Reply furnished to RTI application by Health Department demonstrates that there has been no application of mind, nor prescription of 85% of specified warnings and nature of pictorial warnings was based on any research or survey, etc. Juxtaposed to exercise undertaken by Central Government at time of framing 2008 Rules, 2014 Amendment Rules have not undergone such scrutiny or analysis by Rule making authority. Therefore, Amendment Rules are manifestly arbitrary.

        Rotation of specified health warnings cannot be termed as ultra vires parent Act, inasmuch as Section 3(o) defining specified warning and Section 7(1) and Section 8(2) read together would make it clear that nature of specified warnings against use of cigarette and other tobacco products, specification of such warnings including pictorial warnings and manner in which specified warnings shall be printed, painted or inscribed, are left to be specified by way of rules to be made by Central Government. If intention of legislature is to dissuade people by warning them against use of cigarettes or other tobacco products by printing such warnings as Government may deem fit, it would, in its ambit and scope include rotation of such warnings from time-to-time, and therefore, merely because Central Government has prescribed requirement of rotation of pictorial warnings in 2008 Rules, it cannot be termed as exercise of power being ultra vires parent Act. However, in prescribing rotation as per Amendment Rules, 2014, provision made providing for grace period not exceeding two months to clear old stock of tobacco products bearing specified warnings for expired period of 12 months of rotation period is uninformed by serious repercussion it would have on manufacturers, producers, retailers including even consumers. This is so because, there is total prohibition in presenting packages containing old image from being released by manufacturers after expiry of rotation period and grace period, if any. This will hit bona fide traders, particularly retailers and thereby affect their economics. There is no application of mind in this connection by rule making authority to any of relevant aspects. Therefore, while rule providing for rotation cannot be termed as ultra vires parent Act, manner in which rotation has been provided and grace period is restricted to two months is not preceded by application of mind to grievance of affected interest and therefore, as already held, this portion of rule is manifestly arbitrary.

        [Per Mrs. B. V. Nagarathna, J., (Concurring)]: Rule 5(4) states that at end of each twelve months of rotation period, Central Government may allow distributors, retailers and importers of cigarettes and other tobacco products grace period, not exceeding two months to clear old stock of packages or tobacco products bearing warning specified for expired period of twelve months of rotation period. After expiry of grace period of two months, distributors, retailers and importers of cigarettes and other tobacco products shall not distribute or sell any package having specified health warning beyond expired period of twelve months. There can be no fault found with regard to rotation of health warning but after prior intimation to stakeholders, so as to give them sufficient time to print new warnings, while exercising power under Rule 5(1). Product, whether it is in form of cigarettes or any other tobacco product cannot lose its legality and its worth only on account of rotation of specified warning on package. Form cannot override substance only because packets of tobacco products containing earlier warnings are not sold within period of two months, although said products have shelf life beyond two months and are legally produced. Such provisions cause great economic and financial loss to distributors, retailers, importers and other stakeholders. Hence, said clauses are violative of Article 19(1)(g) and are not saved by Article 19(6) of Constitution, they are liable to be quashed and are quashed.

       CIGARETTES & OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS (PROHIBITION OF ADVERTISEMENT & REGULATION OF TRADE AND COMMERCE, PRODUCTION, SUPPLY & DISTRIBUTION) ACT, 2003 [C.A. No. 34/2003] - Sections 5, 7, 9, 31 & Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labeling) Rules, 2008, Rules 3(1)(b), 4, 5 [as amended by Amendment Rules, 2014] & Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19(1)(a) - Manner of labeling and packaging - Rule 3(1)(b) prescribing ' specified health warning' on package should cover 85% of principal display area - Plea regarding abrogation of right to commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) - Section 7 of Act stating that without printing and carrying specified warning on every package, no person can carry on trade or commerce in cigarettes and any other tobacco products - Act of 2003 not challenged by petitioners in instant case - Amended Rule 3(1)(b), does not abrogate rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) - Held, [Per B.S. Patil, J]: There is no right in any person who is engaged or purported to be engaged in production, supply or distribution of cigarettes or any other tobacco products to advertise said products to suggest or promote their use and consumption through any medium or method including through package containing such product. But, advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco products which does not promote or suggest its use and consumption is permitted provided same does not contain any matter or statement which is inconsistent with or detracts from, specified warning as may be prescribed by Rules made under Act. In light of express prohibition contained for carrying any advertisement, matter or statement on package that tends to promote consumption of products and in view of mandate contained in Act that every package shall bear specified warning including pictorial warning as may be prescribed by Rules without which production, supply or distribution of product itself is prohibited and further in light of provisions contained in S. 8 providing that specified warning on package shall be - (a) legible and prominent; (b) conspicuous as to size and colour; (c) in such style or type of lettering, colour, etc., it becomes very clear that Act mandates compliance with such requirement and in absence of any challenge to provisions of COTPA, challenge made to 2008 unamended Rules on various other grounds are untenable.

        Challenge laid on ground that producers, suppliers and traders of cigarettes and tobacco products cannot be forced to carry certain specified warning because that itself tantamount to forced speech and violates Article 19 (1)(a) and therefore, such restriction imposed on fundamental right to speech and expression on ground of public health or public interest is unsustainable is farfetched argument. In absence of any challenge to provisions contained in 2003 Act, particularly to Section 7(1), argument canvassed contending that restriction imposed by Rules on ground of interest of general public or public health not falling under any one of eight buckets recognized under Article 19(2) on freedom of speech and expression is unconstitutional, cannot be accepted.

        [Per Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, J., (Concurring)]: When there is no unanimity on statements contained in textual warnings, rather when same is subject of serious debate world over, Amendment Rules, 2014 could not have incorporated same without there being any rationale behind it. There appears to be no real application of mind on selection of contents of warnings, which are graphic images seeking to exaggerate ill-effects of tobacco and its products so as to co-relate them to textual warnings. In fact, warnings may not even serve purpose for which they are meant as consumers or potential consumers of tobacco and its products may refuse to believe in contents of such textual warnings and consequently, pictorial warnings also would not have any impact on anybody. As result, whole object and purpose of having such warnings would be lost. There has been no medical or scientific data or empirical research conducted and data collected with regard to impact of warnings on package of tobacco and its products on users/consumers or potential users or consumers, which has been placed before Court by having inputs from behavioural scientists. Having regard to avowed object of having warnings on packages of tobacco and its products, it is unnecessary to have pictorial and textual warnings suggestive of cancer particularly when contents of said warnings are not universally accepted as medically proven. Contents of specified health warning is arbitrary and it is unreasonable restriction, in terms of proviso to Section 5(2) read with Section 7 of COTPA being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) as they have been arbitrarily selected and not reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of Constitution. Hence, Amendment Rules, 2014 is liable to be quashed and is quashed.

       CIGARETTES & OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS (PROHIBITION OF ADVERTISEMENT & REGULATION OF TRADE AND COMMERCE, PRODUCTION, SUPPLY & DISTRIBUTION) ACT, 2003 [C.A. No. 34/2003] - Sections 5, 7, 9, 31 & Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labeling) Rules (2008), R. 3(1)(b) [as amended by Amendment Rules (2014)] - Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 253, 47 - Rules of 2008 - Held, They are domestic health regulations and does not fall within ambit of 'International Health Regulations' or within ambit of 'World Health Organization' - [Per B. S. Patil, J]: Subject 'International Health Regulations' cannot be construed to include Regulations or Rules framed under delegated power of Domestic Law so as to operate within Territory of India. COTPA Rules, 2008 are framed in exercise of power conferred by Section 7(1), Section 8(2), Sections 10 and 31 of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products, Act, 2003. These Rules nowhere make any reference to any International Health Regulations. There is no material to show that they have to be treated as part of International Health Regulations. None of provisions under Sections 7, 8, 10 and 31 of 2003 Act make any reference to any such International Health Regulations. Merely because in preamble to COTPA, 2003 reference is made to Resolution passed by 39th World Assembly, dated 15.05.1986 and 43rd World Health Assembly urging Member States of WHO to implement measures for effective protection to non-smokers from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke and to protect children and young people from being addicted to use of tobacco and also to discourage use of tobacco and impose progressive restrictions on advertising, promoting and sponsoring tobacco, it cannot be said that COTPA Rules framed partake characteristics of International Health Regulations or fall within ambit of WHO. Similarly, impugned 2014 amendment made to 2008 Rules do not contain any such reference to categorize them as international regulations. 2008 Regulations and 2014 Regulations are domestic health regulations and are not international health regulations. By process of judicial interpretation, scope and ambit of expressions 'International Health Regulations' & ' WHO' cannot be amplified to include Regulations/Rules made under COTPA. Careful perusal of nature of subjects which are enumerated as subjects falling within scope of Department of Health and other departments including Department of Industry and Commerce clearly show that such amplification of subjects by process of inference is neither permissible nor warranted in instant case.

        [Per P. V. Nagarathna, J. (Dissenting):] Rules of 2014 are in realm of raising awareness with regard to harmful effects of tobacco on those who use/consume it or potential users by mandating specified health warning on packages of tobacco and its products. Impugned rules are not in context of any scheme or action plan, but piece of subordinate legislation made pursuant to International Convention (FCTC), which is International Health Regulation prepared under supervision of World Health Organization (WHO). When International Health Regulation and World Health Organization (WHO) are subjects, which are expressly allocated to Department of Health and Family Welfare coming under Ministry of same name, it is that Ministry which has authority and jurisdiction to bring about rules pertaining to specific health warning and not any other department under Government of India.

        Even though Ministry of Health and Family Welfare sought amendment of Allocation of Business Rules so as to bring subject 'Tobacco Legislation' under its authority and it was not permitted, same would not have any bearing on controversy in instant case. Even in absence of such subject being allocated to Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, it was and is vested with authority to bring about such legislation on basis of two subjects namely, 'International Health Regulation' and 'World Health Organization (WHO)' being expressly allocated to said Ministry. As already observed any health regulation which is derived from or based on International Health Regulation could be formulated into domestic law on basis of Article 253 by Department of Health and Family Welfare either, as Act of Parliament or, by way of subordinate legislation made under Act of Parliament such as, COTPA and its Rules. Hence, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare need not have been specifically allocated subject, 'tobacco legislation' in order to legislate on health warning concerning tobacco and its products, which is based on international convention or regulation. Therefore, subject 'tobacco legislation' not being allocated does not make any difference to power and authority of Department of Health and Family Welfare in preparing and publishing impugned Rules. For that matter, 'tobacco legislation' is not subject, which is allocated to any other department. But that would not imply department of Commerce, which can otherwise deal with tobacco, as it is subject allocated to said department is also not vested with authority to bring about 'tobacco legislation' from point of its commerce and industry by encouraging measures for augmenting tobacco and its products. 'Tobacco legislation' is in fact improper nomenclature as what has to be seen is what aspect of subject i.e., adverse health effects of tobacco is allocated to particular department in instant case while interpreting Allocation of Business Rules. By way of illustration, on aspect of adverse health effects of endosulfan, pesticide used on certain crops, it is Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which could deal with matter although subject, pesticides is allocated to Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers.

       CIGARETTES & OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS (PROHIBITION OF ADVERTISEMENT & REGULATION OF TRADE AND COMMERCE, PRODUCTION, SUPPLY & DISTRIBUTION) ACT, 2003 [C.A. No. 34/2003] - Sections 5, 9, 31 & Cigarettes & Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labeling) Rules, 2008, Rules 3(1)(b), 4, 5 [as amended by Amendment Rules 2014] - Constitutional validity of amended Rules - Rule 3(1)(b) prescribing 'specified health warning' on package should cover 85% of principal display area - No concrete material available before Health Ministry to prescribe pictorial warning - Existing 2008 Labeling Rules, satisfying criteria of being legible, prominent and conspicuous as to size and colour in matter of printing specified warning - Failure of Legislature in justifying prescription of 85% coverage being legible, prominent and conspicuous and taking away right of petitioners recognized by Proviso to Section 5(2) and rights available to petitioner under Trade Marks Act and Legal Metrology Act - Amended Rules of 2014, held manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable.

        [Per B. S. Patil, J]: Delegated legislation can be challenged on ground that it is contrary to some other statute and that it is unreasonable and manifestly arbitrary. There is non-application of mind by Health Ministry before framing rules as to whether prescription of 85% pictorial and textual warning would result in violating rights of petitioners protected under Section 28 of Trade Marks Act, 1999; whether existing requirement laid down in rules did not satisfy test of being legible, prominent and conspicuous and that nothing less than 85% of coverage will amount to complying with requirement of being legible, prominent and conspicuous; whether prescription of 85% as compulsory display area for pictorial and textual health warnings uniformly with regard to cigarettes, beedis and chewing tobacco was essential despite fact that packages containing cigarettes, beedis and chewing tobacco are inherently different, more so because in case of sachets containing chewing tobacco product, there are only two sides and hardly any space is left to exercise rights available to petitioners under provisions of different enactments such as Legal Metrology Act, 2009, Trade Marks Act, 1999, and also as per Section 5(2) of COTPA.

        As is evident from reply, dated 27.09.2016 given pursuant to RTI Application, dated 26.08.2016 which are produced, there was no concrete material available before Health Ministry based on which decision was taken to prescribe pictorial warning. This amply demonstrates that uniform prescription of 85% specified warning in respect of all these tobacco products was devoid of any basis. More importantly, there has been no application of mind as to how such prescription affected other stakeholders. Even as regards rational behind rotation, there was no material for health department to take any decision. There is non-application of mind to adverse impact it would have on different stakeholders. Therefore, it has to be held that petitioners have been able to make out that rules are manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable. However, it is made clear that it is domain of rule making authority to prescribe such reasonable criteria or prescription in accordance with law based on relevant materials.

        [Per Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, J., (Concurring)]: Size of specified health warning covering at least 85% of principal display area of package of which, 60% will cover pictorial health warning and 25% will cover textual warning. There was no scientific approach adopted while choosing 85% as size of warning. No material has been placed before Court to establish that if size of warning is 85%, it would have effect of dissuading smokers or potential smokers from using/consuming tobacco products. Therefore, it becomes clear that neither was there any basis nor any application of mind to prescribe specified health warning to be 85% of principal display area on both sides of package. In absence of there being any material, which has been considered by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, prescription of 85% of principal display area of package containing specified warning is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 apart from not being in consonance with recommendation made by Parliamentary Committee as well as Expert Committee set up by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Hence, prescription of 85% of principal display area of package with specified warning is in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) as in absence of any material to justify same, it is unreasonable and unsustainable. Size of warning cannot be mere matter of policy in which Courts may not interfere as proviso (a) to Section 5(2) of COTPA is also to be borne in mind. Balance have to be struck between right to advertise on package (as a right under Article 19(1)(g) and reasonable restriction on trade and commerce in tobacco products as enunciated under Section 7 read with Section 9(2) of COTPA. While COTPA permits advertisement on package of tobacco products as per proviso (a), sub-section (2) of Section 5, at same time it is subject to reasonable restriction under Section 7 read with Section 9(2) thereof, inasmuch as contents of advertisement on package cannot detract from specified warning which has to be mandatorily printed on package. Thus, right to advertise on package of tobacco products must be read in context of reasonable restrictions under Section 7 and former cannot be whittled away in name of policy. Further, rule cannot overreach provisions of COTPA. When COTPA permits advertisement on package of tobacco products while prohibiting same everywhere else, said right cannot be diluted by warning being increased to 85% of display area of package on each side. Therefore, size of warning cannot be, having regard to international image of India in movement against tobacco, in total disregard of Fundamental Rights of petitioners. Hence, Rule 3(1)(b) and consequently Clause 3(3) of Schedule are liable to be quashed.

       CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Articles 77(1),(2) & Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act (34 of 2003), Sections 5, 7, 9, 31 & Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labeling) Rules (2008), R. 3(1)(b) [as amended by Amendment Rules (2014)] - Notification publishing Amendment Rules 2014 - Notification issued in name of Joint Secretary and not in name of President - Validity - Held, Merely because notification publishing Amendment Rules 2014 was not issued in name of President but was issued by Joint Secretary, it cannot be said that notification gets vitiated. Notification publishing Rules does not contain executive order but it is piece of subordinate legislation. As long as it was duly published in Gazette of India under signature of Joint Secretary who was authorized for purpose, it cannot be said that sub-clause (1) or sub-clause (2) of Art. 77 have been contravened.

        [Per Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, J., (Concurring)]: Requirement under Art. 77(1) is directory and not mandatory, even if it is held that said rules have not been published in name of President, would not lead to striking down of Rules on ground of breach of Article 77(1). As Amendment Rules, 2014 are published under signature of Joint Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, it is held that there is compliance with Article 77(2) insofar as authentication of publication of said Rules are concerned.

       CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Articles 77(3), 14 & Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act (34 of 2003), Sections 5, 7, 9, 31 & Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labeling) Rules (2008), Rr. 3(1)(b), 4, 5 [as amended by Amendment Rules (2014)] - Constitutional validity of amended Rules - Tobacco legislation - Exercise of rule making power by Health Ministry/Department, unilaterally - Non-allotment of tobacco legislation to Health Department - Said subject concerns more than one department - Failure to take concurrence of other departments at time of framing amended Rules - Amendment Rules of 2014, held to be manifestly illegal. Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, Rules 2, 3. Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961, Rule 4.

        [Per B. S. Patil, J]: Tobacco or tobacco legislation has not been allocated to Health Ministry. Therefore, rule making power under Section 31 of COTPA could not have been exercised by Health Ministry unilaterally. While Health Ministry has been specifically allotted other legislation such as Food and Safety Standard Act and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, no item relating to tobacco has been allocated to Health Ministry under AOB Rules. Subject World Health Organization is allocated to Health Ministry. Proposal made by Health Ministry to include 'Tobacco Control Programme' and 'Tobacco Legislation' as new items by way of review of AOB Rules was not accepted. It is also clear that tobacco legislation is not included within ambit of Commerce Ministry, though tobacco Board and production, distribution and development of tobacco for domestic consumption and exports are included therein. Hence, in terms of Rule 4(1) of TOB Rules, when subject of case concerns more than one department, no decision be taken or order issued until all such departments have concurred or failing such concurrence a decision thereon has been taken by or under authority of cabinet. Where Health Ministry without consulting other Ministries has unilaterally promulgated these Rules and where because of these objections raised, matter was referred to Committee on subordinate legislation and when Committee interacted with all stakeholders and came up with concrete recommendations, without taking note of same, in guise of implementing ex parte interim order granted by Rajasthan High Court, Rules have been implemented. Therefore, there is manifest illegality.

        [Per Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, J., (Dissenting)]: Subject-matter of Rules relating tobacco legislation is exclusively allocated to Department of Health and Family Welfare. It would be useful to reiterate that on enforcement of COTPA, accepted position under Section 7 is that every package of cigarette or other tobacco product would carry specified warning, which would also include specified health warning. This is restriction on production and trade of tobacco products. Therefore, on enforcement of COTPA, legal position is, other departments of Government of India, particularly Department of Commerce is aware of fact and has acknowledged that specified warning must be notified by way of Rules made pursuant to Section 31 of COTPA. Making and notifying impugned Rules or, for that matter, on any rule concerning or touching upon harmful effects of tobacco products on health of people of this country would not affect business of other Department of Government of India, as it is exclusive business of Department of Health and Family Welfare to deal with aspect concerning harmful effects of tobacco and not Department of Commerce, Agriculture or Labour and Employment. If Department of Commerce is to be vested with role in making of Rules pertaining to specified health warning, that would lead to blatant situation of conflict of interest and it cannot be considered to be case where transaction of business in form of making rules for specified health warning on tobacco packages 'is likely to affect transaction of business of other Ministries' as contemplated under Explanation to Rule 4 of Transaction of Business Rules. While Department of Commerce is interested in growth of tobacco industry, Department of Health and Family Welfare is interested in controlling use/consumption of tobacco and its products. Therefore, all persons/entities involved in its growth would not, at same time, device measured or take steps for controlling demand for tobacco products by keeping in mind its ill-effects on human health. Hence, when Department of Health prescribes specified health warning, same would have to be adhered to by tobacco industry, if it is in accordance with law. Department of Commerce cannot have prior say in matter of prescription of specified warning. This is because with regard to tobacco and its products Department of Commerce and Industry would never be interested in taking any measure or passing any law, which would adversely affect commerce and industry in such products or reduce its demand from consumers. Further, Department of Labour and Employment would also not be interested in curbing tobacco industry, which would lead to fall in demand for labour and employment or have any other adverse effect on labour involved in tobacco industry. Department of Labour and Employment would only encourage increase in cultivation of tobacco and growth of tobacco industry, so that tobacco industry would attract more labour and increase employment, which would ease demand for employment in that sector. Aforesaid departments would be concerned with growers of tobacco; producers, distributors, traders; or labour employed by tobacco industry. Therefore, other departments, particularly Department of Commerce would not have role in educating people of this country or take steps to reduce ill- effects of use/consumption of tobacco and its products on their health or, for that matter, prohibit addiction to tobacco products; smoking in public places or near vicinity of educational institutions or having a ban on sale of tobacco products being sold to minor children or children below eighteen years.

        There is no substance in contention of petitioners that Article 77 (3) and Rules made thereunder namely, Allocation of Business Rules and Transaction of Business Rules are breached. As subject concerning impugned Rules are expressly allocated to Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and consultation with other departments was only directory and not mandatory, Amendment Rules, 2014 cannot be struck down as being violative of Transaction of Business Rules.