2012 (2) TMI 446 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether third and the fourth respondents have been stopping the vehicles belonging to the petitioners, which are carrying empty bottles to other States, without the authority of law and are contrary to articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 304(a) of the Constitution of India? Held that - This court is of the considered view that a general direction cannot be issued by this court, as prayed for by the petitioners, in the above writ petitions. It is a well-settled position in law that no blanket order can be passed by the courts of law, especially, when the relief sought is vague and general in nature. The petitioners have not been in a position to substantiate their claims that the third and the fourth respondents are interfering with the transportation of the empty beer and brandy bottles, as claimed by the petitioners, arbitrarily, without the authority of law. W.P. dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Transportation of old empty bottles and corrugated boxes to other states for recycling process; Allegations of interference by respondents based on Designs Act, 2000; Constitutional validity of actions under articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 304(a) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case involving the transportation of old empty bottles and corrugated boxes by the petitioners to other states for recycling purposes. The petitioners, registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, have been conducting this business for over 30 years with approval from the Government of Tamil Nadu. However, the respondents, particularly the third and fourth respondents, have started restraining the petitioners from transporting these items to other states. The main contention raised by the respondents is that the bottles being transported have registered designs under the Designs Act, 2000, and the contents are intended for sale only in Tamil Nadu.

The counsel for the petitioners argued that under section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000, no one can be restrained without an order of interim injunction from a competent court. They further contended that the actions of the respondents in stopping the vehicles carrying the bottles to other states are arbitrary and illegal, causing financial loss and mental agony to the petitioners. The petitioners approached the court under article 226 of the Constitution of India, citing violations of articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 304(a) of the Constitution.

On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents argued that the petitioners failed to demonstrate specific instances of harassment by the respondents or prove that they were operating with the necessary licenses or permits as per the law. The respondents also raised concerns about potential infringement of the Designs Act, 2000 by the petitioners. They emphasized that a general prayer for relief without sufficient cause should not be granted by the court.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the court held that a general direction could not be issued in favor of the petitioners as their claims lacked substantiation. The court emphasized that no blanket order can be passed when the relief sought is vague and general. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were deemed devoid of merit and dismissed, with no costs imposed. However, the court clarified that the petitioners could challenge any future proceedings initiated by the respondents if they infringed on the petitioners' rights or contravened the law and principles of natural justice. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed as a result of the judgment.