Green Dream Foundation v. Union Of India Through Ministry Of Consumer Affairs & ORS.
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5169/2020 & CM APPLs. 18612-18613/2020 GREEN DREAM FOUNDATION ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr. Nilesh Bijlani & Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advs.
versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS & ORS. ..... Respondents Through:
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Vivek Goyal, CGSC and Mr. Sahaj Garg, Adv. for R-1, R-2, R-4 & R-5 Mr. Akshay Sapre & Mr.Shivendra Singh, Advs.
for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
O R D E R
% 11.08.2020 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
1.
This public interest litigation has been preferred with the following prayers:
"a. Issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No.1, 2, 4 and 5 to formulate guidelines for testing, launching, certification etc. for such products which claims themselves to kill covid-19 virus or sterilize products from Covid-19 virus; and b. Issue writ of mandamus thereby directing Respondent No.1, 2,
4 and 5 to take action against organizations/institutes which issue reports without proper evaluation of the product and further do not keep track of the use of such reports; and c. Issue writ of mandamus thereby restraining Respondent No. 3 from selling its product Corona Oven without proper certification and until only accurate information isdisplayed on their website/social media and other public platforms; and d. Issue writ of mandamus thereby directing Respondent No.3 to issue a public apology on its website and also a clarification to its customers regarding the misleading, false and inaccurate claims made by them on /through various e - commerce and news media platforms; and e. Pass other/further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Natural Justice." 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to various annexures and submitted that respondent no. 3 has acted in violation of several laws and directions issued by the Central Government. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that all canons of arguments are against respondent No. 3.
3.
Moreover, there are various representations preferred by this petitioner to the respondents which are yet to be decided by the concerned respondent-authorities.
4.
In view of the above, we hereby direct the concerned respondent authorities to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the same in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policies applicable to the facts of the case, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the concerned parties, as expeditiously as possible and
practicable.
5.
With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 11, 2020 ns