ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 and other Articles of the Constitution, a Company 'Asian Paints Ltd.' challenges the notice dated 21.1.2009, issued by respondent no.2 - the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Weights and Measures Department, Parali Vaijnath and the order passed in Appeal dated 15.9.2009 by respondent no.4 - the Controller of Legal Metrology, M.S. Mumbai.

(2.) Notice of respondent no.2 dated 21.1.2009 shows that the Inspector, Legal Metrology visited the shop M/s Kucheriya Agencies at Subhash Chowk, Parali Vaijanath, District Beed, which is a dealer of Asian Paints. He found three tins of Asian Paints having stickers affixed on the containers at a place where details of M.R.P., manufacturing date and net contents were printed. The notice shows that it was act of retail dealer. Respondent no.2 seized fifteen tins of Apcolite Premium Gloss Enamel and 15 of soft Royal Luxury Emulsion having such stickers. The stickers printed by Asian Paints were disclosing colour shades. On 27.1.2009, respondent no.2 issued notice to the Director of Asian Paints, Santacruz, Mumbai disclosing these facts and stating that prima facie crime under Section 33 read with Rule 6 (1) (b) and Rule 23 (7) punishable under Section 51 (1) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976 was disclosed. This was a show cause notice as to why criminal case should not be filed against the petitioner. By letter dated 3.9.2009, the petitioner explained its stand. According to the petitioner, all the necessary declarations as per the provisions of law were printed on the tins. There was no violation of provisions of the Act and the rules. The petitioner had provided its labels to the dealers for disclosing the shades of the paints. There were specific instructions to the dealers not to affix the stickers on the part of the tin where the statutory declarations were printed. The petitioner had no control over the activities of the dealers as they are plenty and spread over the entire country. The petitioner has taken all the care to prevent any violation of provisions of law. The petitioner has produced the letter of instructions given to the dealers with regard to affixing of the stickers. The petitioner also made representation dated 18.3.2009 to respondent no.4 complaining about the illegal seizure and issuance of notice to the petitioner by his sub-ordinates, including respondent no.3 - Deputy Controller at Aurangabad. On 5.5.2009 respondent no.2 issued notice to the Managing Director of Asian Paints that he should attend the Court of law on 15.6.2009 in connection with the above seizure and violation of provisions of law. Then, Writ Petition No.498 of 2009 came to be filed and by order dated 10.8.2009, the petitioner was directed to avail the remedy of filing application before respondent no.4 with direction to respondent no.4 to expeditiously dispose of such application, if filed. Accordingly, application dated 21.8.2009 came to be filed.

(3.) The petitioner has produced letter of the retail dealer dated 10.6.2009, whereby he admitted his guilt and paid compounding charges and specifically stated that the petitioner - Asian Paints has no role in the above matter. The petitioner, on 21.8.2009 approached respondent no.4 Controller of Legal Metrology. The petitioner's Appeal no.11 of 2009 came to be rejected with a direction to the respondents to launch prosecution, unless the action was compounded by the petitioner and the department.