IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the powers of Certification Officers under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016, and the implications of the petitioner's violation of statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is stated to be the proprietor of a group of companies dealing in the manufacture and retail sale of gold ornaments and such other. He impugns Exts.P2 and P12 proceedings of the 1st respondent – Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), whereby, his showrooms in Edappally, Ernakulam were raided and certain gold ornaments seized and placed in safe custody in the locker in his own premises, purportedly invoking the powers under Section 28 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 (‘Act’ for short). He asserts that these actions are peremptorily illegal because, they are in violation of the statutory scheme; and hence that he has been constrained to approach this Court through this writ petition.

2. Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Kavya Varma M.M. -learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the impugned actions of the respondents are in excess of jurisdiction, in colourable exercise of power and in blatant disregard to the provisions of the ‘Act’. The learned Senior Counsel took me extensively through Section 27 of the ‘Act’, to argue that a “Certification Officer”, as defined under it, shall have the power only to inspect any operation carried on in connection with any goods, articles, process, system or service in relation to which a standard mark has been used; and to then take samples of such. He pointed out that this has relevance because, Section 27(1) of the ‘Act’ renders it evident that the “Certification Officers” are appointed for the purpose of inspection, to verify whether any goods, articles, process, system or service in relation to which standard mark has been used, confirms to the relevant standards, or whether the standard mark has been properly used in relation to it with or without licence, and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them. His argument was, therefore, that the Certification Officers in this case had no authority to search his client’s premises, or to seize articles therefrom, especially on account of the rigour of Section 28 of the ‘Act’, which he pointed out, would apply only where articles are “secreted” and not held openly. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, prayed that respondents 1 and 2 be directed to release the gold ornaments seized and stored in his client’s locker, so as to enable him to transact his business; with a corollary plea that Exts.P2 and P12 be quashed, as having been issued in excess of jurisdiction vested with the Certification Officers, under Section 28 of the ‘Act’.

3. Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Manoj Ramaswamy – learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, however, in response, argued that the afore contentions of the petitioner have been made without regard to the specific provisions of Section 28 of the ‘Act’, which authorizes the “Certification Officers” in certain cases to search any place and to seize any articles, when it is found that the specified offences mentioned therein are committed. The learned Senior Counsel argued that since, in this case, the petitioner unequivocally admits that the sale of gold ornaments in his showrooms at Edappally, Ernakulam were being carried on without a valid permission under Section 15(1) of the ‘Act’, but were relying upon one such, which was issued to his showroom at Trivandrum, as evident from Ext.P1, the actions of the “Certification Officers” become ineluctably without error, since they are expected to avert any such violation and to take necessary action, as and when it is so detected.

4. Sri.S.Sreekumar vehemently argued that, in the face of the virtually conceded position of the petitioner, that he is in violation of Section 15(1) of the ‘Act’, his arguments against Exts.P2 and P12 are peremptorily unsustainable; and hence prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

5. Before I move forward and evaluate the afore rival contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the parties, I must advert that the pr