P Satish Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Prl Secy, Cons.Affairs, Food And Civil Supplies, Hyd And Anr

Facts

This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by an advocate, Pendyala Satish Kumar, challenging the practice of charging more than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) and dual MRP for packaged commodities, including mineral water, in Telangana. The petitioner also sought to declare service charges by hotels and restaurants as illegal and to enforce guidelines and judgments related to these issues. The respondents were the State of Telangana, represented by the Principal Secretary of Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, and the Controller of Legal Metrology. The petition sought directions for inspections, seizure of goods sold in violation of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and awareness campaigns. It also prayed to declare mineral water an essential commodity.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded before the Court that the present writ petition (Public Interest Litigation) had become infructuous. This was attributed to the amendment to the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The Court did not delve into the merits of the issues raised by the petitioner concerning dual MRP, service charges, or the classification of mineral water as an essential commodity. The reasoning for the infructuousness was solely based on the petitioner's submission regarding subsequent legislative and fiscal changes. Consequently, all pending miscellaneous applications were also closed, and no order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether charging more than MRP and dual MRP for the same quantity and brand of mineral water and other packed commodities constitutes an unfair trade practice, is illegal, and ultra vires the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether charging service charge by hotels and restaurants is illegal? 3. Whether mineral water and drinking water should be declared an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that charging above MRP and dual MRP is an unfair trade practice and illegal. They sought enforcement of the Legal Metrology Act and Rules, and consumer protection laws. They also argued that service charges in hotels and restaurants are illegal and sought enforcement of relevant guidelines and judgments. The petitioner further contended that mineral water should be classified as an essential commodity. Respondents' arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents. However, the Court noted the petitioner's statement that the petition had become infructuous.