Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Wrigley India Private Limited vs Union Territory Of J And K And Ors on 7 April, 2025
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
S. No. 09
Suppl.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
(Through Virtual Mode)
WP(C) 761/2025 CM(1899/2025)
WRIGLEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sikander Hyaat Khan, Advocate
VS.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER
07.04.2025
1. By this petition, petitioner-Wrigley India Private Limited, has invoked
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 read with Article 227 of
the Constitution of India thereby challenging the notices dated
05.03.2025, 10.02.2025 and 03.02.2025 issued pursuant to
communications dated 28.11.2024, 23.12.2024 and 14.01.2025 issued
by Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology, Kulgam (“Assistant
Controller”/Respondent No. 3) under Section 18 of the Legal
Metrology Act, 2009 and Rule 6(11) of the Legal Metrology
(Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 for short LMPC Rules.
2. It is stated that in terms of the Impugned Notices, the Respondent No.
3 has instructed the petitioner to “cease the marketing and distribution
of any pre-packaged commodities”, on the ground that the
methodology for rounding off adopted by the petitioner while
declaring the Unit Sale Price (“USP”) of the Petitioner’s product,
namely, Wrigley’s Orbit (Sugar Free Spearmint Flavour Chewing
Gum), MRP: Rs. 50; Net Quantity: 22g and USP: Rs. 2.28/g
(“Product”) is allegedly contrary to Rule 6(11) of the LMPC Rules.
3. Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has
stated that the notices are bad in law on account of the fact that neither
the Act nor the Rules prescribed any specific methodologies for
rounding off, and in absentia of such provision, the petitioner cannot
be subjected to an unreasonable and arbitrary penalty, without
authority of law.
4. Learned senior counsel has further stated that the petitioner is a
manufacturer of Orbit chewing gum and the USP value is Rs. 2.28
grams throughout India and till date no objection has been raised by
any authority, whereas in terms of the impugned order, though the
final notices have been served, but the Assistant Controller Legal
Metrology, Kulgam, has issued a final and non-negotiable notice
thereby directing petitioner to immediately rectify the violations by
ensuring full compliance within the stipulated legal requirements and
regulatory directives, failing which enforcement actions shall be
initiated without any further correspondence and mandatorily
compound the case by remitting the statutorily prescribed
compounding fee under Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009,
within an irrevocable period of Seven (07) days from the date of
receipt of the said notice.
5. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that though the petitioner
has responded to the initial notices issued by the respondent No. 3 but
final impugned notice dated 05.03.2025 could not be responded. It is
termed as a final and non-negotiable notice wherein the respondent
No. 3 has already instructed to seize the marketing and distribution of
any pre-packaging commodities that are in contravention to the Legal
Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules 2011. It is also stated that in response
to the notice dated 31.01.2025, petitioner herein has submitted a
detailed reply thereby reflecting the calculation in terms of Rule 6.11
of LMPC rules but the same has not been accepted by respondent No.
3 without any reasonable justification.
6. On asking of this Court, Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, learned Dy. AG.,
enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He
seeks and is granted week’s time to file reply.
7. Mr. Sheikh Zuhaib Ahmad, Inspector, Legal Metrology Department,
Kulgam, present in this Court, submits that he is under instructions of
respondent No. 03 – Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology,
Kulgam, to state that till the objections are filed and considered on the
next date of hearing, respondents will not take any action against the
petitioner.
8. On the assurance given by the respondents, the grant of interim relief
is deferred till next date of hearing. It is expected that no coercive
action shall be taken against the petitioner till next date of hearing.
9. List on 23.04.2025.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
07.04.2025
Aamir
Amir Rashid Sofi
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
10.04.2025 12:57
[ad_1]
Source link