Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B. Seshagiri Rao vs Prl. Secy., C.S. Dept. 4 Ors. on 1 February, 2022
Author: M.Ganga Rao
Bench: M.Ganga Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.6772 OF 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in taking action against the officers and inspectors responsible for violation of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short 'the Act') and the Andhra Pradesh Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011 (for short 'the Rules, 2011'), more particularly the Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology, Vijayawada, Krishna District for violation of the Rules, 2011, as illegal, arbitrary.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is running a partnership firm viz., M/s.Star Instruments, which is engaged in the manufacture of Electronic Weighing Instruments at Vijayawada. It is a licensee under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, 2011 and the same is renewed from time to time. He submitted an application for change of workshop address and the transfer of existing license from the name of partnership firm to his own name on the alleged ground of dissolution of existing partnership firm. But, the petitioner failed to submit the proof of dissolution of partnership firm issued by the competent authority. Hence, the application of the petitioner was rejected as it was in contravention of Rule 2 11(10) of the Rules, 2011 and an appeal lies to the State Government under the provisions of Section 50(1)(e) of the Act against the order passed by the Controller under the provisions of Section 23 read with Rule 11 of the Rules, 2011 in respect of licensees. But, without exhausting the effective alternative remedy of appeal, to bring pressure on the respondent authorities and to take vengeance against the respondents, the petitioner made a complaint before the Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh. The complaint was disposed of with a direction to the public servants of the respondent- organization to uphold the confidence of the public.
4. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondent authorities are not following the provisions of the Act and the Rules, 2011. Contrary to the instructions issued, the Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology, Vijayawada, Krishna District, recommended for renewal of license of M/s.Meharaj Scales Company and M/s.United Weighing Systems Private Limited, Vijayawada in spite of non-submission of prescribed registers. Based on the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner made a complaint on 08.07.2013 to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent vide letter dated 05.11.2013 directed the Assistant Controller to enquire into the matter and report compliance, but he failed to submit any report. The petitioner again made a consolidated representation dated 04.01.2017 bringing to the notice of the 3 2nd respondent about the corruption that is rampant in the department and seeking action on his complaint, but no action has been taken. Complaining in-action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.
5. The contesting respondents 2 and 3 filed counter contending that the Legal Metrology department before 2013 used to maintain the department manually in respect of the process of issuing licence and renewals. Thereafter, the Controller of Legal Metrology Department has switched over to online mode for issue and renewal of licenses from the year 2014 to remove discretion of the officer and to bring in much needed transparency and accountability in the matters of licensing system through Mee-seva Portal in a phased manner. In addition to the said reforms, the Department has introduced a system of "Auto Renewals" of all categories of licenses of the department. The Department has further relaxed the submission of certain documents/requirements for grant of licenses by proceedings dated 18.03.2021, in order to further relaxation of licensing requirements to reduce the compliance burden of the licenses. In fact, the petitioner has not enclosed any piece of evidence in support of the allegations made in his petition dated 08.07.2013 including two work reports cited by him. The licenses in respect of M/s.United Weighing Systems Private Limited, Vijayawada and M/s.Meharaj Scales Company, Vijayawada were granted in the year 2013 and the said licenses of the two dealers have 4 been renewed for the years 2013 to 2017 in accordance with the rules and that too after thoroughly satisfying the compliance with regard to keeping of registers and filing of periodical returns. However, the petitioner has selectively made use of the information obtained under the Right to Information Act in respect of the said two firms and resorted to make a complaint before the Lokayukta, Andhra Pradesh and before this Court, only to exert pressure on the respondent authorities to change the existing license of M/s.Star Instruments partnership firm, in which the petitioner is one of the partners, on the ground of dissolution of said firm without any supporting documents, which was already rejected, for which remedy of appeal is available under the provisions of Section 50(1)(e) of the Act.
6. The 3rd respondent, Joint Controller of Legal Metrology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, in his counter specifically stated that online system of licensing was introduced in the year 2014 to remove the arbitrariness in the department and to bring transparency and accountability has brought the licensing system under online system through Mee-seva Portal in a phased manner. He further stated that submission of certain documents were already relaxed by proceedings dated 18.03.2021. The statutory obligation is shifted to the applicants in the event of submission of any false documents for obtaining renewal and they are liable for legal action. Now, the respondents are strictly implementing 5 the provisions of the Act and the Rules, 2011, without any breach.
7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to issue any Writ of Mandamus as prayed for. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to make a complaint with specific violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, 2011 on the fresh cause of action, narrating detailed specific allegations, as per the provisions of law.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
9. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO 01-02-2022 anr 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6772 OF 2017 01-02-2022 anr