M/S Srinivasa Cine Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 Others

Held

The Court, upon considering the submissions of learned counsel for both parties and noting the statement made at the bar, decided to dispose of the writ petition on similar lines as W.P. No. 18660 of 2020. The Court granted the petitioner eight weeks' time to respond to the impugned notices dated 08.07.2019 and 13.12.2019. The Court directed that it would be open to the petitioner to take all defenses available to them under law in the said explanation. The first respondent (presumably the NAA) was directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, communicating it to the petitioner. The Court also clarified that it had not made any material observations on the merits of the case. All contentions were kept open.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Srinivasa Cine Enterprises, a movie theatre proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging notices dated 08.07.2019 and 10.12.2019 issued by the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering Authority (DGAP) and a consequential notice dated 13.12.2019 issued by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA). The petitioner sought to declare these notices illegal and arbitrary. The respondents included the Union of India, DGAP, Principal Commissioner of Medchal Commissionerate, NAA, and Commissioner of Police. The petitioner sought a stay on further proceedings. Subsequently, an interlocutory application was filed by the Union of India and others to vacate the interim order. The High Court had previously passed an order in an identical matter (W.P. No. 18660 of 2020) granting one month's time to respond to notices, which was later extended to two months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notices issued by the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering Authority and the National Anti-Profiteering Authority are illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Act, requiring them to be set aside? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the notices were illegal and arbitrary, seeking to have them set aside. They relied on a previous order of the same High Court in an identical matter (W.P. No. 18660 of 2020) which granted time to respond to such notices. Revenue's contention: The respondents (Union of India, DGAP, NAA) did not object to granting a similar order as passed in the previous identical writ petition. They acknowledged that Rule 133 of the Rules framed under the Act provides for an opportunity of being heard to all interested parties if a request is made in writing, and that there is no time limit for such measures. They also stated that the impugned notices were being withdrawn and fresh notices would be issued.