THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI W.P.NO.25830 OF 2019

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.3 in seizing the petitioner’s goods under Panchanama in Case No.117/PC/2019, (Panchanama SI No.11099) dated 17.08.2019 by issuing a letter dated 30.09.2019 bearing Lr.No.83/PC 2019-20 to the petitioner demanding the petitioner to pay the compounded fee within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, as illegal and arbitrary and in breach of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and consequently to set aside the same, and to pass such further order or orders.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Company which is engaged in various businesses and one of the business is sale of Sarees, blouses and lehengas of premium quality under its brand name “Taneira”. Accordingly, it has set up retail outlets with the same name across the Country. In Hyderabad, it has set up its “Taneira” retail outlet at H.No.8-3- 293/174/14/G9, BNR Colony, Road No.14, Banjara Hilss, Hyderabad and was carrying on the said business. It is submitted that on 17.08.2019, the respondent No.3 visited the Taneira Store and inspected the garments offered by the petitioner’s Company for sale. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has resorted to seizure of 10 Sarees and 5 lehengas on the ground that they are being sold in violation of Provisions under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011. The said provisions pertain to penalties concerning pre-packaged commodities under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (the “LM Act”). The seizure was under panchanama dated 17.08.2019 and an undertaking was obtained from the store manager that he would not sell or dispose of the seized sarees and lehengas. Thereafter, the letter dated 30.09.2019 was issued stating that the offence was compoundable and to pay the compounding fee within a period of seven days therefrom. However, challenging the action of seizure and the subsequent notice dated

30.09.2019, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court through the labels of the products put up for sale which are placed at Pages No.23 to 25 to demonstrate that all the necessary and prescribed details such as name of the manufacturer, the name of the product, the quality of the product or the origin including the measurement of the saree and price of the saree, are all mentioned on the label. He further submitted that there is no violation of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. He further refers to notification of the Central Government dated 16.12.2016, wherein, it is clearly mentioned that the labeling requirements for garments sold in loose form in retail stores may include declaration containing the name and description of the product, the size internationally recognized, MRP, name and full address of the manufacturer. He further submitted that there is no violation of this notification also by the petitioner. He also referred to subsequent notification issued by the Central Government on 31.03.2017, wherein it has been clarified that loose garments which are sold after the consumer sees them for Style/Design, tries them for fit and touches them for feel of the Fabric/Fiber etc., is not a pre-packaged commodity if the same garment is delivered to the customer. He submitted that this circular also clarifies the legal position. Therefore, according to him, the seizure was unwarranted and is not sustainable. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of H & M Mauritz Retail Pvt. Ltd. vs Legal Metrology Department Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4380 on the meaning of pre-

packaged commodities under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on the other hand, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that Section 2 (l) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 de