1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PIL NO. 62 OF 2008 Crusade Against Tobacco ... Petitioner Versus Union of India ... Respondent Mr. Kevie A. Satelwad i/by Mrs. Mandakini D.S. Singh for Petitioner. Mr. K.R. Belosey, A Panel Counsel for R. Nos. 2 to 5. Mr. R.V. Desai, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Rohit Pardeshi for R. No. 6. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 17TH MARCH, 2010 P. C.: This court has been monitoring the matter since the year 2008. This court by various orders had directed as under : (1) The police authorities to file compliance report which they have been 2 doing. That occupies more than two volumes before this court. (2) Secondly the directions were also issued to the authorities under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act as to what action they have taken. An affidavit have been filed on that count showing compliance. (3) We had further directed the Customs Authorities to place on record of the steps that they are taking to see that no imports are effected which would be violative of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Customs Authorities have filed affidavit showing that at every customs entry point, steps are taken to ensure that no goods which contravene the provisions of the Act are imported and if such goods are brought in they are seized and or confiscated. (4) We have further directed the authorities under the Central Excise Act to file their affidavits. We have two affidavits today of one filed by one Mr. Ramesh More, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Mr. S. Mohan. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. In both the affidavits they have set out that the statutory provisions of the Cigarettes and other tobacco Products Act, 2003, Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules 2008 and the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Amendment Rules, 2009 are being complied with. In other words, no goods manufactured 3 in this country can come out of the factory premises unless the provisions of the Act and the rules are complied with. (5) In so far as the goods sold at the air ports at the departure point earlier customs authorities had taken action. A Petition was filed before this court. This court had refused to grant interim relief. Party aggrieved, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court which set aside the order of this court and permitted sale in terms of section 32 of the Act. (6) On behalf of the Petitioner the learned counsel submits that there is still non compliance by the Customs authorities and the Police authorities. In the first instance, in so far as police authorities are concerned, it is no doubt true that the Act confers upon them a power if there be any information to enter upon the premises and seize the material. There is however, no power in the police authorities to confiscate the goods as the power is conferred on other authorities. There are affidavits filed on behalf of the police authorities showing the action they have taken from time to time. In our opinion, there has been sufficient compliance by the police authorities in terms of the directions of this court and or provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. (7) In so far as section 32 of the Act is concerned, the provision itself is clear that nothing under the act shall apply to tobacco and cigarettes 4 which are exported. The learned counsel however draws our attention to the proviso which sets out that nothing under the said section shall be deemed to authorize the export of any tobacco or cigarettes or any other tobacco products not containing the specified warning and indication of nicotine and tar contents to any country, if the law in force in that country requires that the same or similar warning and nicotine and tar contents shall be specified on each package of cigarettes or other tobacco products. On a reading of the section, section 32 exempts exports from the provisions of the Act. However, the proviso sets out to a country where the laws in force do not permit without complying with the provisions of the laws of that country then the other proviso will apply. Firstly, goods sold at the air port, prima facie, are not for export of goods as there is no requirement of complying with the provisions of the Customs Act. It is in that context that the order of the Supreme Court has to be construed. In our opinion, therefore, there has been sufficient compliance by the statutory authorities in the matter of enforcement of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. (8) Once this court find that there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act and the rules, in our opinion, no purpose would be served by keeping this petition on board. (9) We however, make it clear that if the Petitioners come across any 5 such establishment violating the provisions of the Act and if the same are brought to the attention of the authorities, such authorities are bound to take action. With the above observations, petition disposed of. (A.A. SAYED,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)