C.W.P NO. 7569 OF 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 7569 OF 2006 DECIDED ON : 17.03.2009 Haryana Khadi Gram Mandal (Regd.) ...Petitioner versus Registrar and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. M. S. Khaira, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. S. Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. D. Sharma, Senior DAG, Haryana. Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional AG, Punjab. Mr. R. P. Kansal, Advocate, for respondent No. 7. Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.9. Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate, for respondent No.10. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. G. S. Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.12. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is a Society registered under the Socities Registration Act, 1860, which seeks a direction to various authorities of the State of Punjab, Haryana and U.T, Chandigarh C.W.P NO. 7569 OF 2006 -2- to take appropriate action under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the private respondents No. 7 to 14, who according to the petitioner, are manufacturing cosmetics in violation of these Acts. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the official as well as private respondents have filed their respective reply-affidavits. It appears that no action is required to be taken by the Director, Health, Chandigarh Administration. Accordingly, respondent No.4 is ordered to be deleted from the array of respondents. The petitioner's case is that the private respondents have got registered themselves as Ayurvedic Medicine Manufacturers and therefore, they cannot manufacture cosmetics in violation of the provisions of the Acts mentioned above. The private respondents have denied the petitioner's allegations. In a situation like this, the Authorities, namely, respondents No.2, 3, 5 and 6 are obligated to act within the parameters prescribed under the relevant statutes or in exercise of their administrative powers and look into the allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties and arrive at a definite opinion as to whether or not there is violation of any statutory provisions. Suffice it to say that in a given case the violation may warrant criminal prosecution while in other case, only regulatory measures may be required to taken to ensure that the license to manufacture Ayurvedic Medicines is not misused. C.W.P NO. 7569 OF 2006 -3- Consequently, without going into the merits of the allegations or counter-allegations, the official respondents No.2, 3, 5 and 6 are directed to take cognizance of the allegations made by the petitioner as well as the counter reply/stand taken by the private respondents and take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. MARCH 17, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE