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

Dismissal of writ petitions for lack of substantiation in claims and vague relief sought

The court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, who were transporting old empty bottles and corrugated boxes to other states for ... Right to carry on trade and transport goods - Designs Act, 2000 - restriction on use of registered design and interim injunction requirement - blanket reliefs and general directions by courts - burden to substantiate arbitrary interference by authorities - constitutional protection of trade under Article 19(1)(g) and equality before law under Article 14Right to carry on trade and transport goods - burden to substantiate arbitrary interference by authorities - blanket reliefs and general directions by courts - constitutional protection of trade under Article 19(1)(g) and equality before law under Article 14 - Designs Act, 2000 - restriction on use of registered design and interim injunction requirement - Whether a writ petition seeking a general direction restraining respondents from stopping petitioners transporting empty beer and brandy bottles to other States is maintainable and entitled to relief - HELD THAT: - The court examined the petitioners' claim that respondents were unlawfully restraining transportation of empty bottles and that any restraint under the Designs Act, 2000 required an order of interim injunction. The petitioners failed to produce specific instances of harassment or documentary proof of unlawful stoppages, and did not demonstrate possession of any licence or permit required by law. The court emphasised that courts should not grant blanket or vague reliefs; a general direction cannot be issued when the relief sought is general and unsupported by particulars. While the Designs Act and its interim injunction requirement were noted, the petitioners did not establish entitlement to a pre-emptive, wide-ranging order against rival infringement claims. The court observed that the petitioners remain free to challenge any specific proceedings initiated by respondents that, if shown to be unlawful, may be set aside on appropriate grounds and in accordance with principles of natural justice. [Paras 9, 10]Writ petitions dismissed for want of merit; no blanket injunction issued and petitioners may challenge specific proceedings if entitled to do soFinal Conclusion: The writ petitions seeking a general direction restraining respondents from impeding transportation of empty beer and brandy bottles were dismissed as the petitioners failed to substantiate arbitrary interference and sought an impermissibly vague blanket order; they remain at liberty to contest any specific proceedings initiated against them. 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.