A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable for quashing criminal proceedings after the Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons, as an efficacious alternative remedy exists under Section 528 BNSS.

Respondent No.2 – Bureau of Indian Standards seized the stock and registered case vide STC No.17 of 2025 before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad against petitioners. Challenging the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the BIS Rules, and consequently to quash the same and direct release of the material seized under Seizure Memo dated 22.04.2025, petitioners are before this Court.

Petitioners’ case is that petitioner No.1 is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, recognized as a Micro Enterprise under MSME Registration No.UDYAM-TS-02-0096508 and registered as a Start-up with the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade. Petitioners stated that the company is engaged in trading battery-operated low-voltage kitchen appliances including portable blenders and choppers operating at 7.4V DC, which according to petitioners fall under IS 302 (Part 1) Safety of Household and Similar Electrical Appliances and are below the maximum voltage threshold of 250V prescribed therein.

It is contended, on 22.04.2025, there was no notified and enforceable requirement mandating BIS Standard Mark for petitioners’ category of battery-operated low-voltage appliances, therefore, Respondent No.2 lacked jurisdiction to seize the goods or initiate prosecution merely on the allegation of absence of BIS Standard Mark. According to petitioners, products were classified under IS 302 (Part 1:2024) and were fully compliant with the prevailing statutory regime and applicable Quality Control Orders as on the date of inspection and seizure.

Petitioners stated that on 22.04.2025, officials of Respondent No.2 visited the premises of Petitioner No.1 and seized 83 cartons of handheld portable blenders of various capacities including 400 ml, 500 ml, 600 ml and 700 ml under Seizure Memo dated 22.04.2025 solely on the allegation that the products did not contain BIS Standard Mark. The seizure, according to petitioners, was undertaken without proper verification and in disregard of the applicable exemptions and notified timelines.

Petitioners contended that non-affixation of BIS Standard Mark, by itself, does not constitute an offence unless the product is covered by a valid and enforceable Quality Control Order applicable on the date of inspection and seizure and unless the enforcement date had commenced. According to petitioners, the essential ingredients required for attracting Sections 16 and 17 read with Section 29 of the BIS Act were absent and therefore, the prosecution is liable to be quashed at the threshold. Petitioners further contended that earlier Notification S.O.4098(E) dated 17.09.2024 contemplating compulsory use of BIS Standard Mark under IS 302 (Part 1) stood superseded by Gazette Notification S.O.2232(E) dated 19.05.2025, wherein the Central Government prescribed revised and extended compliance timelines including deferred compliance period for Micro Enterprises up to 19.09.2026. It is stated, being a duly-registered Micro Enterprise under MSME Registration No.UDYAM-TS-02-0096508, they were within the protected compliance period and therefore, no coercive action could have been initiated on 22.04.2025.

Petitioners stated that they repeatedly approached Respondent No.2 and submitted representations explaining that products were covered by the extended compliance period and that no action could be initiated prior to the cut-off date. However, according to petitioners, Respondent No.2 failed to consider the oral requests and written representations and proceeded with premature and vindictive enforcement action. The impugned seizure and prosecution resulted in restriction upon their fundamental right to carry on trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, paralyzed day to-day business operations, caused contractual defaults and resulted in reputational and commercial injury. It is alleged, Respondent No.2 issued press notes regarding the sei