Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mars International India Private vs Union Territory Of J And K And Ors on 7 April, 2025
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
S. No. 08
Suppl.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
(Through Virtual Mode)
WP(C) 760/2025 CM(1898/2025)
MARS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE ...Petitioner(s)
LIMITED
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. Hakeem Aman Ali, Dy. AG
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER
07.04.2025
1. By this petition, petitioner-Mars International 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 for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
not a manufacturer but only a marketer, as such, in terms of Rule
6(11) of the LMPC Rules, no penalty can be imposed on the petitioner
herein.
5. Learned senior counsel has further stated that the petitioner submits
that 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10.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