LAWS(J&K)-2021-10-32

BASHIR AHMAD SHERGOJRI Vs. UT J & K

Decided On October 27, 2021
Bashir Ahmad Shergojri Appellant
V/S
Ut J And K Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged notice bearing No.ACF/Estt/Pul/21- 22/71 dtd. 12/6/2021 issued by respondent No.3, whereby petitioner has been directed to stop the manufacturing of toned milk under the brand name of "SAAF SHEER" with immediate effect. A further direction commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to run his milk processing unit M/S Insha Dairy Products without any hindrance, has also been sought.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he is running a milk processing unit under the name and style of M/S Insha Dairy Products, Lassipora Pulwama. It is averred that petitioner is manufacturing toned milk under the brand name of "SAAF SHEER" whereas the respondent No.4 is manufacturing toned milk under the brand name of "SAFA SHEER". Petitioner alleges that at the behest of respondent No.4, Vice Chairperson, J&K Khadi and Village Industries Board addressed a communication to Commissioner, Food Safety Department, Jammu and Kashmir, asking the aforesaid authority to stop the petitioner from using POLYPACK film of "SAAF SHEER" as the same affects the goodwill of SAFA SHEER by misguiding the consumers. According to the petitioner, on the basis of this communication and under the political influence, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned notice directing the petitioner not to manufacture toned milk under the brand name "SAAF SHEER".

(3.) Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid communication on the grounds that "SAAF SHEER" being a registered trademark of petitioner cannot be allowed to be infringed by asking him to stop production under the aforesaid brand name; that the petitioner has not violated any regulation pertaining to packing and labelling and, as such, action of respondent No.3 is not in accordance with law; that by issuing the impugned notice petitioner's fundamental right to carry on business has been taken away without following due procedure and that action of respondent No.3 is without jurisdiction.