Amway files writ petition against Government Order in AP High Court

The Amway India has filed writ petition No. 21284 of 2008 and Amway distributor DVSL Deepak filed another writ petition No. 21286 of 2008 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court aggrieved by G. O. M.S. No. 178 dated 15-09-2008 restraining Amway India Enterprises from advertising in any media about their business module/plan.

The Home Department which has issued the GO MS No. 178 in its counter affidavit submitted to the Andhra Pradesh High Court, stated that the each of the contentions now raised were discussed threadbare by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court while dismissing the writ petition No 20470 of 2006 along with another writ petition on 19-07-2007. The writ petitions were dismissed and it is relevant to extract the declaration of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court which is as follows:

"...We are, therefore, of the considered view that the scheme run by the petitioners squarely attracts the definition of 'Money Circulation Scheme' as provided in Section 2 (c) of the Act"

By virtue of the above declaration, it is clear that the business module/plan of the company squarely comes within the provisions of the Act. As a matter of fact, it is the petitioner company which has invited the above said declaration from the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It is necessary to state here that the company filed special leave petition (S.L.P.) (Civil) No. 13414 of 2007 before the Honourable Supreme Court of India and the Honourable Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 14.8.2007.

However, the Supreme Court directed as follows:

"We, however, direct the investigation officers to complete the investigation within a period of six months from today. The investigation officers shall carry on the investigation with a sense of expedition, uninfluenced by any observation made by the High Court."

The counter affidavit stated that merely because the Supreme Court made such observations, the findings and declaration of the Andhra Pradesh High Court referred to above, it cannot be said that the same have ceased to exist. Investigations are completed and charge sheet has been filed. Though criminal prosecution is pending, the declaration of the High Court that the business module of the Amway India squarely falls within the prohibited transactions under the said Act remain and is still in force.

The affidavit also stated that the State government issued the GO after the charge sheet is filed, invoking the power conferred under Section 8 of the Act. (Kindly go to older posts to read the provisions of the Act)

The affidavit also categorically stated that the contention of the petitioners that any action against the company and others under Section 8 can be taken only after the final verdict of the criminal court finding them guilty is baseless and untenable. In this regard it is stated that the observations of the Supreme Court are sought to be distorted by the petitioners and those observations cannot be construed to mean that the Supreme Court has interfered with the categorical findings of the High Court.

In this view of the matter, the action taken by the Andhra Pradesh State Government under Section 8 of the Act is well within the competence and need not await the final outcome of the ongoing criminal trial in view of the judgement of the High Court. The affidavit asserted that restraining any publication/advertisement which falls within the mischief of the provisions of the Act would also fall within the ambit of Section 8.

The affidavit stated that the action of the State is perfectly legal and valid.

The Home Secretary, Mr Ajoyendra Pyal, stated in the affidavit that there is a specific finding against the petitioners recorded by the High Court and having invited such finding, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that the scheme operated by them would not fall within the meaning of Money Circulation Scheme. At any rate, permitting publication of such an advertisements to lure gullible public, despite a categorical finding, would amount to allowing the petitioner to violate law and propagate the business plan/module which has held to be illegal. It would practically amount to abetment of crime apart from giving a go bye to the findings of the High Court.

Referring to the contentions of the petitioner that the GO is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19(1) (g), the affidavit stated that it is not a question of carrying on a trade and it is a question of propagating an illegal trade and therefore the said contention is liable to be rejected.

This is the extract of the affidavit. Is it enough for Amway apologists to learn the stand of the Government and the Judiciary? Now go and hang yourself in shame.