Chennai: The Madras high court on Friday restrained milk and dairy development minister K.T. Rajenthira Bhalaji from issuing any disparaging statements against private manufacturers of dairy and milk products in Tamil Nadu. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan granted the interim injunction on the application arising out of a suit filed by Hatsun Agro Products, Dodla Dairy and Vijay Diary and Farm Products, the leading milk and dairy products manufacturing and marketing private companies.
However, the judge directed that the three plaintiffs must subject their milk and milk products for voluntary test analysis in accredited laboratories, in accordance with the procedure laid down in law, once every three months and file the reports before the court. The results can be used by both the plaintiffs and the defendant (Rajenthira Bhalaji) to justify their stands during the trial, the judge added.
The judge said, “With respect to a prima facie case, the statements extracted from the reports in the newspapers clearly reveal that Rajenthira Bhalaji had launched an all-out attack on private milk and milk product producers. He had made very shocking revelations and it is up to him to justify the same. But the tenor of the statements indicates that unless there is an order of injunction, the pitch would only increase, to the detriment of all private milk producers.
He must realise that honest workmen in the employ of private milk companies like the plaintiffs would be the first sufferers of such a tirade of accusations. They would be direct victims if suddenly sales of privately manufactured milk and milk products fall and companies feel the pinch of such a vitriolic campaign”.
The balance of convenience has been also in favour of the plaintiffs since literally, they were groping in darkness.
No one knows whom Rajenthira Bhalaji had meant in his press statements. But the statements were sufficient to damage the reputation of all private milk producing companies since all their products would be viewed suspiciously. There was also no indication whether Rajenthira Bhalaji would rest in his assertions or whether he would produce test analysis reports to justify his statements. The statements by themselves justify an order of injunction, the judge added.
The judge said it must be pointed out that while granting the interim order on July 10, 2017, this court had observed: “If there are substantial materials to prove adulteration, he should specify the name of the private company which indulge in such adulteration and also produce the necessary documents to substantiate his charge”.
