Telangana High Court: In the present writ petition, petitioner, PepsiCo India Holdings (P) Ltd. assailed the validity of the action of respondents in seeking to enforce and initiate proceedings for prosecution against petitioner for violation of Rule 6(1)(a) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Amendment Rules, 2006, in respect of the package material used by petitioner prior to 31-12-2007 on the ground that the same was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Petitioner prayed for a consequential direction to respondents not to take any action against petitioner in consonance with the directions issued by the Central Government dated 5-7-2007. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ., and Anil Kumar Jukanti, J., dismissed the petition and held that petitioner’s contention that it was exempted from complying with Rule 6(1)(a) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (‘the 1977 Rules’) was misconceived.
Background
Petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and is a manufacturer of non-alcoholic carbonated beverages, packaged drinking water and packaged edibles such as potato chips and markets the products in India including in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner was under an obligation to manufacture, prepare, and package its products in consonance with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (‘the Act’); the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985; the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977; and the Fruit Products Order, 1955. In exercise of the powers under Section 83 of the Act, the 1977 Rules were framed and the Central Government on 12-1-2007 issued guidelines for implementation of the 1977 Rules.
Respondents submitted that petitioner was violating the provisions of Rule 6(1)(a) of the 1977 Rules and therefore, notices dated 25-6-2007, 3-7-2007, 4-7-2007, 5-7-2007, 9-7-2007, 31-7-2007 and 1-8-2007 were issued to petitioner informing it about the contravention of the provisions of Sections 39, 33 of the Act and Rule 6(1)(a) of the 1977 Rules. Thereafter, the proceedings dated 12-10-2007 was issued by the Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weights & Measures), Hindupur, by which it was stated that petitioner may prefer an appeal to the Controller, Legal Metrology, Weights & Measures Department, Hyderabad. Thereafter, a notice dated 18-10-2007 was issued by the Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weighs & Measures), Nalgonda, to petitioner by which it was informed that a case was registered against it for the offences under Sections 63 and 51 of the Act and under Rule 39 of the 1977 Rules on 25-6-2007. Thereafter, petitioner was served with summons on 15-3-2008 issued by the Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Hindupur, for offences under Section 72 of the Act.
Counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was exempted from the requirement of compliance with Rule 6(1)(a) of the 1977 Rules and therefore, the notices and the proceeding for prosecution which was initiated against petitioner was non est and had no sanctity in the eye of law. Counsel for Respondents 6 to 8 and 11 pointed out that the order dated 12-1-2007 issued by the Central Government was in the nature of a guideline and had no statutory sanction. Therefore, petitioner’s contention that it was exempted from the requirement of compliance with Rule 6(1)(a) of the 1977 Rules, was misconceived.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that under Rule 6(1)(a) of the 1977 Rules, a manufacturer was required to mention on every package the name, address, telephone number, e-mail address of the person or the office that could be contacted in case of a consumer complaint. The power to grant exemption from a provision of law had to emanate either under the relevant Act or the relevant Rules. The Court opined that in the present case, none of these statutory provisions either under the Act or under the 1977 Rules had been brought to its notice which empowered the Central Government to exempt a manufacturer from operation of the provision of the Rule 6(1)(a) of the 1977 Rules.
The Court stated that the provisions of the Act were amended, which was notified with effect from 17-7-2006 and therefore, the Central Government had issued guidelines to ensure smooth transition in implementation of the 1977 Rules, and by way of an amendment, new provisions were incorporated. Further, the guidelines only provided that efforts might be made to give wide publicity to the changes made in the 1977 Rules to spread awareness amongst manufacturers/wholesalers/retailers. It was also stated in the guidelines that initial enforcement steps might only arise in investigational surveys and the deficiencies noticed should be brought to the notice of the manufacturer concerned so that they could update their label declarations and the seller might put in place an appropriate weighing equipment. The said steps were directed to be taken till 30-4-2007 and it was expected that in the said initial period there would be no prosecution.
The Court thus stated that the order dated 12-1-2007 was not an order granting exemption to petitioner from requirement of compliance of Rule 6(1)(a) of the 1977 Rules. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition and held that petitioner’s contention that it was exempted from complying with Rule 6(1)(a) of the 1977 Rules was misconceived.
[PepsiCo India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 438, Order dated 3-4-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: N. Naveen Kumar
For the Respondents: P. Govind Reddy
