Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1345
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Reliance Retail Limited - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary To Government Department Of Food & Civil Supplies Vikas Soudha Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Road Bangalore - Respondent
Writ Petition No.30523 Of 2012 (GMRES)
Decided On : 14-11-2019
For the Petitioner: Sri. Ajoy Kumar Patil, Adv.
For the Respondent: Smt. M.C. Nagashree, AGA
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 94 and 102 - Legal Metrology Act, 2009 - Section 15 - Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 - Quash - Business of agricultural products - Petitioner states that it is company incorporated provisions Companies Act and inter alia carries on retail business of agricultural products like fruits and vegetables as also fast moving consumer goods - Petitioner has various distribution centers and retail outlets across country - One such distribution centre is situating village Bangalore - Petitioner has obtained general license from Grama Panchayat for locating warehouse distribution centre - Petitioner states that petitioner sources various commodities which are delivered at its distribution centre and thereafter petitioner processes those goods and material for onward transmittal to its retail centre’s outlets - Petitioner does not carry on any manufacturing or packing activity but is only reseller retailer of those goods – Held, Justice is rooted in confidence and justice is goal of quasi judicial proceeding also - If functioning quasi judicial authority has to inspire confidence in minds of those subjected to its jurisdiction such authority must act with utmost fairness - Its fairness is obviously to be manifested by language in which charges are couched and conveyed to person proceeded against - In instant case from underlined portion of show cause notice it is clear that third respondent has demonstrated totally close mind at stage of show cause notice itself - Such close mind is inconsistent with scheme of Rule which is set out below - Aforesaid rule has been framed in exercise of power conferred Section Marine Products Export Development Authority Act as such that Rule is statutory in nature - Authorities have proceeded in show cause notice as if petitioner guilty of offence - Hence even on this ground show cause notice is liable to be struck down - Prayer seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing respondents not to interfere with petitioner from carrying on retail activity of sale and packaged commodities at Retail outlets or stocking of goods at distribution centers maintained by petitioner cannot be granted - Authorities concerned have all right and powers to act in terms of Act and Rules to ensure that retailers like petitioner and others comply with those provisions - Officers detailed Section conducting search on basis of reasonable ground cannot be called as interference with carrying on business activity by petitioners long as all procedural safeguards are followed – Petition allowed
ORDER :
1. The Petitioner aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 22.08.2012 issued by the 4th respondent under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (‘Act’ for short) wherein the petitioner is alleged to have violated the Act and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (‘Rules of 2011’ for short) has presented this petition.
2. The petitioner states that it is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and inter alia carries on retail business of agricultural products like fruits and vegetables as also fast moving consumer goods. The petitioner has various distribution centres and retail outlets across the country. One such distribution centre is situate at Adakamaranahalli village, Dasanpura Hobli, Bengaluru.
3. The petitioner has obtained a general licence from the Dasanapura Grama Panchayat on 12.03.2012 for locating a warehouse/distribution centre. Petitioner states that the petitioner sources various commodities which are delivered at its distribution centre and thereafter, the petitioner processes those goods and material for onward transmittal to its retail centres/outlets. The petitioner does not carry on any manufacturing or packing activity, but is only a reseller/retailer of those goods.
4. Petitioner states that on 22.08.2012, a team led by rd respondent without any warrant inspected and searched the above distribution centre and seized certain goods lying in the distribution centre and thereafter, 3rd respondent having prepared the mahazar, prepared a list of goods seized and violations said to have been committed by the petitioner of the provisions of the Act and Rules.
5. Shri Ajoy Kumar Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid actions on the part of the respondents are in violation of the Act and Rules inasmuch as:
5.1. Section 15(4) provides that every search or seizure made under the Section shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions relating thereto and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (‘Cr. Pc’ for short) more particularly Section 94 and 102 of the Code.
5.2. In terms of Section 94 of Cr. P.C, it is only a Magistrate or a sub-divisional Magistrate who can issue a warrant for such seizure and in the present case, the inspection and seizure having been conducted by 3rd respondent, who is not a magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate, is violative, both of Section 15(4) of the Act and Section 94 of the Cr.P.C.
5.3. The violations which have been attributed to the petitioner is in terms of violating Rules 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 24 of the Rules. He submits that these violations could not be committed by the petitioner who is a retailer since the obligations enshrined under those rules are to be discharged by the manufacturer or a packer and cannot be done so by a retailer like the petitioner. He submits that a retailer, does not have the wherewithal to print or publish those requirements on the packages. In short, he submits that the petitioner has no control over the packaging of any of the goods manufactured by a particular manufacturer.
5.4. Many of the seized goods are food products, which are covered by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and therefore, in terms of explanation (iii) to Rule 6(1)(a), those food products are exempted from the requirement of the Rules.
6. On the basis of the above, he submits that the writ petition needs to be allowed and Annexure-C, show cause notice dated 22.8.2012 issued by the 4th respondent under Section 15 of the Act is required to be quashed. He further states that a writ of mandamus is also required to be issued directing the respondent not to interfere with the petitioner from carrying on retail activity of sale of packaged commodities at the retail outlets or stocking of the goods at the distribution centres maintained by the petitioner.
7. Per contra, Smt Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that:
7.1. The officers under the Act being the Director, Controller or any leg
