Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M.V. Krishnaiah And Another vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Food And ... on 20 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(3)ALD296, 1999(3)ALT315
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
ORDER
1. The instructions issued by the Controller of Legal Metrology, Government of Andhra Pradesh in Circular No.14285/T2/88-2 dated 31-12-1988 prescribing the norms for testing, conducting of the test for skilled worker for undertaking the repairs of Weights, Measures, Weighing and Measuring Instruments is assailed in this writ petition. The matter arises under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (for short 'the Enforcement Act'). The first petitioner is a licensed repairer and having a valid licence issued under the provisions of the Enforcement Act. The second petitioner is stated to be working in the workshop of the first petitioner as a trainee for the last ten years.
2. Shorn of all the embellishments, it is the case of the petitioners that either under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') or under the Enforcement Act, 1985 or the Rules framed thereunder, there is no provision whatsoever to issue licence to a class of people, namely, skilled workers. Therefore, the impugned memo containing the circular instructions issued by the second respondent prescribing the methodology for conducting the test for the so-called skilled workers is ultra vires. According to the petitioners, the second respondent created a new class of skilled workers which is not contemplated by either of the Acts or the Rules framed thereunder. The respondents have no authority to issue any licence whatsoever to any person as a skilled worker. The Acts and the Rules provide only for issuance of licence to repairers and not to any skilled worker.
3. Before adverting to the question relating to the validity of the instructions issued by the second respondent, it would be appropriate to have a look at the theme and object of the said Act. In 1956, Parliament enacted the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1956 (89 of 1956) with a view to replacing the bewildering varieties of weights and measures in use in the country by standards based on the metric system. For the enforcement of these standards, the States enacted laws applicable to their respective territories. The State of Andhra Pradesh accordingly enacted the Andhra Pradesh Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958 and also framed Rules thereunder.
4. The Central Government after some time with a view to give affect to the recommendations of the International Organisation of Legal Metrology (OIML) and the draft legislation on weights and measures for adoption by the member-countries, set up an expert committee to suggest changes in the existing laws with a view to bringing them in line with the latest international trends and also removing the deficiencies which had been revealed in course of their implementation. After going into the matter in depth the committee suggested the replacement of the 1956 Act as well as the enforcement laws of the States.
5. The Parliament enacted the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) to replace the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1956 with a view to modernising the system of weights and measures in the country.
6. It may be noticed, the enforcement aspect of weights and measures which was earlier in the State List was transferred to the Concurrent List by the Forty-second Amendment to the Constitution. The preparatory note and the statement of objects and reasons of the Enforcement Act, 1985 would reveal that majority of the States have not taken action for revision of their enforcement legislation. Consequently, the enactment of a comprehensive legislation in the enforcement of the Standards established by the 1976 Art has become art urgent necessity. The Enforcement Act, 1985 accordingly provides for the enforcement of the Standards of Weights and Measures and also provide for protection to consumers by ensuring metrological accuracy in commercial transactions, industrial measurements and measurements needed for ensuring public and human safety. The Act makes provision relating to initial verification, periodical verification inspection in use, verification after repair and registration of users.
7. it is also required to notice that Enforcement Act, 1985 repeals the corresponding provisions of any law in force for the time being in that State. However, the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is made applicable as if the provisions so repealed were the provisions of a Central Act. However, notwithstanding such repeal, any appointment, notification, rule, order, registration, licence, certificate, notice, etc., issued or given under such law shall, if in force at the commencement of this Act, continue to be in force and have effect as if it were made, issued or given under the corresponding provisions of this Act. The Enforcement Act came into operation with effect from 21-4-1988 in the State of Andhra Pradesh and accordingly with effect from the said date, the Andhra Pradesh Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958 stood repealed. It is also necessary to notice that the Government of Andhra Pradesh in purported exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Enforcement Act, 1985 framed the Rules known as the Andhra Pradesh Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1986 (for short '1986 rules'). The Rules have come into force with effect from 15th July, 1989. It is true that the Rules do not prescribe the appointment of any skilled worker as such. The Rules also do not lay down any qualification, experience for grant of any certificate to any skilled worker.
8. But as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the system of undertaking repairs of weights and measures is not a free trade. Section 9 of the Enforcement Act, 1985 prohibits the usage of weights and measures other than standard weights and measures which is required to be kept in the premises and the State Government is authorised under Section 10 to issue necessary directions not to use any weight, measure or number except the specified one in that regard by the State Government. Section 19 is very relevant for our purpose and it says that no person shall make, manufacture, repair or sell, or offer, expose or possess for repair or sale, any weight or measure unless he holds a valid licence issued in this behalf by the Controller authorising such person to do so. Every licence issued shall be in such form, issued on payment of such fee and valid for such period as may be prescribed. It may be renewed from time to lime and may contain such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed. The State Government is authorised under Section 5 of the Enforcement Act, 1985 to appoint a Controller of Legal Metrology for the State and as many as Additional, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Controllers, Inspectors and other officers and staff as may be necessary for exercising the power and efficiently discharging the duties, conferred or imposed on them by or under this Act. The authority so appointed is required to act and discharge the duties as its officers under the general superintendence, direction and control of the Controller. Evidently the duty to administer the Act is conferred upon the Controller and other officers referred to hereinabove to enforce the provisions of the Act. The Controller with a view to effectively administer the provisions of the Act and implement the provisions of the Act and the Rules is entitled to issue necessary administrative instructions for the guidance of the officers so long as such instructions do not run counter to the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. The gaps, if any, can be bridged by the administrative instructions. Such instructions are invariably issued with a view to maintain uniformity in the Enforcement of the Acts. Such instructions are normally issued by the Controlling Authority or the Head of the Department as the case may be to structure the discretion of officers who arc entrusted with duty to implement and enforce the provisions of the Act. Those instructions can supplement the Rules. Ofcourse supplanting is not permissible. The validity of the instructions which are impugned in this writ petition are to be judged in that background.
9. The Enforcement Rules of 1980 have come into force with effect from 15-7-1989 whereas the Enforcement Act come into force with effect from 21-4-1988, During the interrugnum i.e., from 21-4-1988 to 15-7-1989 between commencement of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1985 and the rules made therein, the Andhra Pradesh Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1958 were in force. It is required to appreciate that the said Enforcement Rules of 1958 were in force as on the date of Enforcement Act, 1985 coming into effect. By virtue of Section 75(2) of the Enforcement Act, 1985 the Rules continue to be in force and have affect as it were made issued and given under the Enforcement Act, 1985.
10. Rule 25 of the A.P. Weights and Measures Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Enforcement Rules, 1958) prescribes procedure for grant and renewal of manufacturers licence and the Rule inter alia prescribes that "A light repairer shall have atleast two skilled workers, who shall pass a test both oral and written conducted by the Department." The procedure for conduct of the examination is also prescribed under the said Rule. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh Pratap Singh, AIR 1955 SC 84, observed :
"Whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid down in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will follow unless, as the Section itself says, a different intention appears. In the case of a simple repeal there is scarcely any room for expression of a contrary opinion. But when the repeal is followed by fresh legislation on the same subject we would undoubtedly have to look to the provisions of the new Act, but only for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention.
The line of enquiry would be, not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them. We cannot therefore subscribe to the broad proposition that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is ruled out when there is repeal of an enactment followed by a fresh legislation. Section 6 would be applicable in such cases also unless the new legislation manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the Section. Such incompatibility would have to be ascertained from a consideration of all the relevant provisions of the new law and the mere absence of a saving clause is by itself not material."
But in the instant case, Section 75 itself declares the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act expressly. Therefore, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act shall apply. To the same effect is the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Chief inspector of Mines v. Karam Chand Thapar etc., . The instructions contained in Memo dated 31-12-1988 are in conformity with the Enforcement Rules, 1958. The instructions were revised from time to time and necessary modifications and amendments were made and the latest one which is in force in the Circular dated 26-9-1989 which regulates the testing of the personnel in the field of fare meter repairing.
11. Now let us have a look at the Enforcement Rules of 1986. Rule 12 of the said Rules deals with Licensing of manufacturers, repairers and dealers of weights and measures. Every manufacturer or repairer of, or dealer in, weight or measure is required to make an application for the issue of a licence to the Controller or such other officer as may be authorised by him in this behalf, in the appropriate form set out in Schedule V-A. Form V-B deals with the requisite application for renewal of the said licence. Form LR-1 prescribed under the said Rules, requires an application to furnish the details of the types of articles the applicant proposes to repair and the number of skilled staff employed in the workshop. It is evident that the skilled staff are required to be employed in the workshop whenever a person wants to undertake manufacture, repair or sell or offer, expose or possess for repair or sale any weight or measure a licence is required to be obtained from the Controller or from the person authorised for the purpose. The person applying for such licence himself need not be an expert or the skilled worker, but he cannot undertake any manufacture, or repairs unless skilled workers are employed in his establishment to undertake the activity of manufacturing or repairing. Enforcement Rules of 1986 may be silent with regard to the procedure and methodology for either conducting the test or identifying a skilled worker, but the silence is eloquent.
A combined reading of the Rules and the forms which form part of the Rules would, disclose that a licence may be granted for manufacture, repair of the weights and measures only on condition of the applicant specifying the employment of skilled workers required for manufacture or repair of the Weights and Measures. Since the Rules arc silent as to how the test has to be conducted and allotment of marks and procedure thereof, the Controller who is the supervising and controlling authority thought it fit to issue administrative instructions for the guidance of its officers in the matter of conducting the test ana certifying the skilled workers. Admittedly, those instructions do not run counter to any of the Act or the Enforcement Rules of 1986. They are in conformity with the theme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is not as if anybody can apply for a licence of manufacture, repair of the Weights and Measures and it is not as if anybody can manufacture or repair the Weights and Measures. Specialised knowledge is required for undertaking the job. No licence could be granted to a person unless lie himself is a skilled worker or employs skilled workers for such purpose. The instructions merely provide for the procedure for ascertaining the skill of a person concerned in the matter of manufacture, repair of the Weights and Measures.
12. Nothing is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as to how and in what manner the petitioner are aggrieved by the said instructions.
13. The allegations of mala fides and corruption levelled against some officers are vehemently denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. At any rate, learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri P. Sridhar Reddy did not and rightly press the said point relating to malice and corruption. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record in support of the case put-forth by the respondents except the self-serving statement made in the affidavit. It would be very easy for any person to level any allegation even against the responsible officers. I do not find any reason whatsoever to,.believe the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition so far as this particular aspect is concerned.
14. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any merit whatsoever in the writ petition. The writ petition deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.