IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1154 of 2022

======================================================

M/S Om Gold House Shakuntala Palace Bakerganj, Patna- 800004, through

its Proprietor Mithilesh Kumar aged about 52 Years (Male), Son of Shree

Ramlakhan Prasad, R/o-Behind R.B.I, Salimpur, Ahara, Phulwari, P.S.-

Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India through Director General, Bureau of Indian Standards,

Ministry of Consumer Affairs With its Headquarters Manak Bhawan, 9

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002.

2.

Deputy Director Geenral (Eastern),s Bureau of Indian Standards, Ministry of

Consumer Affairs, BIS Eastern Regional Office, Kolkata.

3.

Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Patna Branch Office (PTBO) through its

Scientist-D and Head, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Ms. Shama Sinha, Advocate

For the Respondent/s

:

Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, A.S.G.

Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, CGC

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 07-03-2022

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

Patna High Court CWJC No.1154 of 2022 dt.07-03-2022

2/4

We are of the considered view that petitioner

does have an equally alternative and efficacious remedy under

the provisions of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

In terms of the impugned order dated 25.09.2020

(Annexure-1 Page 16), the authority has directed forfeiture of

certain goods i.e. gold ornaments seized from the custody and

possession of the petitioner. The officer has also imposed fine of

Rs. One lac to be recovered from the proprietor of the firm.

Immunity for prosecution also stands granted.

Ms. Shama Sinha, learned counsel for the

petitioner, argues that goods seized were bearing the BIS mark,

which fact has not been held to be so by the appellate authority.

We notice that Section 32 of the Act deals with

criminal prosecution in relation to the offences committed under

the Act and Section 33 deals with power to compound such

offences. Quite apparently, no action stands initiated against the

petitioner under the said provision.

Section 15 of the Act prohibits import, sale,

Patna High Court CWJC No.1154 of 2022 dt.07-03-2022

3/4

storage, distribution and exhibition of any goods or articles,

save and except, certified from the Bureau.

Bureau has been defined to be an authority

established under Section 3 of the Act.

Section 17 of the Act prohibits manufacture,

import, distribution, sale, hire, lease, storage or exhibition of

any sale of goods, articles, process, system or service

compulsorily required to be stamped with the standard mark, as

envisaged under Section 16 of the Act.

The stamping, of course, has to be with a

standard mark by a valid license holder.

The standard mark stands defined under sub-

section (40) of Section 2 of the Act.

Whether the goods were having the hallmark or

as to whether the person selling the same had the license to do

so or not, is something which this Court can go into, unless the

final fact finding adjudicatory authority examines the issue and

records its findings.

In our considered view, all issues raised herein

can be best examined by the appellate authority constituted

under Section 34 of the Act.

As such, on this short ground alone, we are not

Patna High Court CWJC No.1154 of 2022 dt.07-03-2022

4/4

inclined to issue notice and entertain the present petition, which

is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to take recourse

to such remedy as is otherwise available, in accordance with

law.

We notice that the impugned order is dated

25.09.2020 and the petition was filed