IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2883 OF 2019 Radhika Shastry & Another ...Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another ...Respondents With CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2805 OF 2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited & Another ..Applicants Vs State of Uttarakhand & Other …Respondents With CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2806 OF 2019 Parthasarthy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. …Applicants Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & Another …Respondents Presence Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, learned senior counsel for the Applicant.

Mr. Vipin Painuli, learned AGA, for State.

Mr. Prateek Tripathi, learned counsel for the Respondent.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. These three Criminal Miscellaneous Applications, viz., Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2883 of 2019, No. 2805 of 2019, and No. 2806 of 2019, have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since the applications arise from a common factual matrix and involve overlapping legal issues, they are being decided by this common order.

2. The applicants in these connected matters are Ms. Radhika Shastry and Mr. Sridar Iyengar, both serving as independent and non-executive directors of Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Limited, along with Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited & Another, as well as Parthasarthy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. The respondents include the State of Uttarakhand through the Principal Secretary of the Department of Food and Civil Supply Uttarakhand Secretariat, Dehradun, Inspector Legal Metrology, and the Controller/Director of Legal Metrology for the Government of Uttarakhand.

3. The facts leading to the present application are as follows.

On 18.06.2019, the Legal Metrology Inspector inspected “Bird Song”, a multi-cuisine restaurant situated within Club Mahindra Binsar Valley Resort, which is operated by the applicant company. During the inspection, a 250 ml can of Pepsi was allegedly sold at Rs. 99.12, which was above the maximum retail price (MRP) of Rs. 25 printed on the can. Based on this transaction, an inspection report was prepared, and subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant company.

4. In response, the company submitted detailed replies dated

08.07.2019 and 31.07.2019, contending that the resort, including its restaurant, functions as part of an integrated hospitality service. It was asserted that the sale of beverages within the resort premises forms an incidental component of the composite service rendered to guests, and therefore, does not fall within the purview of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 or the Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011.

5. Following the inspection, notices were served to the company. Upon receiving what the authorities deemed an "unsatisfactory explanation" from the applicants, a complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora. The magistrate subsequently took cognizance of the matter and issued a summoning order against the applicants.

6. The arguments advanced by learned counsel have been heard,and the records perused.

7. On behalf of the applicants, it is contended at the outset thatthe complaint fails to establish any statutory violation under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, or the Rules framed thereunder. Rule 32 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, under which cognizance has been taken, is a residuary provision prescribing punishment only for contraventions where no specific penalty is provided elsewhere in the Rules.

8. The summoning order does not identify which provision of the Rules has been contravened, nor does it explain how the transaction in question, a sale within a resort restaurant, falls within the ambit of the Act. The absence of any reference to a specific violation demonstrates non-application of mind and renders the proceedings liable to be quashed.

9. Another contention which the learned counsel for the applicants stressed upon is that the doctrine of mala fides and ab