Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2072
IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL & S. MANIKUMAR, JJ.
S.M. Anantha Murugan – Petitioner
Versus
Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others – Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 11514 of 2010 & M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 to 3 of 2010
Decided On : 12-06-2015
For the Petitioner:W. Peter Ramesh Kumar for J. Pooventhera Rajan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, G.R. Swaminathan, Assistant Solicitor General of India, R5, C. Muthusaravanan, Advocate, R3 & R4, A.K. Baskarapandian, Special Government Pleader, R6, No Appearance.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of substantive proof in allegations of adulteration and the limitations of seeking mandamus relief without sufficient evidence.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Representation for Ban on Sale of Soft Drink - Consumer Redressal Forum - Adulteration Allegation - Lack of Substantive Proof
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to ban the sale of a soft drink after finding a cockroach in one of the bottles. The petitioner also filed a consumer petition, which resulted in compensation being awarded for mental agony and litigation expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no substantive proof of the soft drink being spurious or intoxicated. The consumer petition resulted in compensation due to deficiency in service, but did not establish the adulteration allegation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should grant the Writ of Mandamus to ban the sale of the soft drink based on the petitioner's representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that there were no materials to hold the soft drink as spurious and intoxicated, and the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court closed the related motions.
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
1. A practising lawyer of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110001 and Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi 110011, respondents 1 and 2 respectively, to consider his representation dated 14.07.2010.
2. Mr. W. Peter Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner purchased 24 bottles of 200 ML Slice cool drink from M/s. Star Agency, 84/2, Meera Husain Street, Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu, the 6th respondent herein. After drinking 12 bottles, he found a Cockroach in an unopened 200 ML bottle of Slicev, cool drink. According to him, thousands of people blindly consume the said soft drink, manufactured and sold by M/s. Aradhana Food and Juices (P) Limited., NH-9, Mumbai Highway, Pothireddypally Village, Sangareddy, Medak District, Andhara Pradesh-502 295, respondent No.5 herein.
3. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that though respondent No.5, is advertising that its products have international quality, and would not cause any harm to the consumers, the product sold was adulterous and spurious. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 14.07.2010, to the respondents 1 to 4, to ban sale of ''Slicev cool drink, in the State of Tamil Nadu and to order, forfeiture of the abovesaid soft drink, kept for sale, in the shops all over Tamil Nadu. As the representation remained unanswered, Writ of Mandamus is sought for.
4. Opposing the said relief, Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, submitted that such a representation seeking for a direction against the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home, Government of New Delhi, cannot be entertained. He further contended that, in many writ petitions, the Home Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi, is unnecessarily impleaded as a party respondent. He also submitted that if at all the petitioner, was aggrieved over the presence of any insect in the bottle, purchased by him, representation to ban the sale of the abovesaid soft drink, cannot be entertained.
5. Mr. C. Muthusaravanan, learned counsel for M/s. Aradhana Food and Juices (P) Limited., NH-9, Mumbai Highway, Pothireddypally Village, Sangareddy, Medak District, Andhara Pradesh-502 295, the 5th respondent herein, submitted that it is always open to the writ petitioner, to approach the Consumer Redressal Forum, if the petitioner was aggrieved.
6. At this juncture, Mr. W. Peter Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that a Consumer Petition No.32/2012 was also filed before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputhur, and after adjudication, vide order, dated 19.09.2014, the Forum, has directed a sum of Rs.195/- being the sale price of 200 ML Slice soft drink, to be returned and for the mental agony and litigation expenses, a sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively, were awarded.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
7. As rightly pointed out by Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, inclusion of the Home Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi, as one of the respondents, to this writ petition, filed for a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4, to consider the representation dated 14.07.2010, is unnecessary. In the representation dated 14.07.2010, the petitioner has prayed to declare the soft drink, ''Slicev, as intoxicating drink and not fit for human consumption and consequently to close down the manufacturing unit of the Soft drink, Viz., Slice, at M/s.Aradhana Food and Juices (P) Limited., NH-9, Mumbai Highway, Pothireddypally Village, Sangareddy, Medak District, Andhara Pradesh-502 295, respondent No.5.
8. Though the petitioner has contended that the abovesaid soft drink contains sp
