Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Metric Men Sangha vs State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2026
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:6591
WP No. 1529 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 1529 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA METRIC MEN SANGHA
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE
KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1960
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.70
OUTER RING ROAD, KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT,
LAGGERE, BANGALORE - 560 097
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
MR. BABU S.,
S/O SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
2. SRI. A. V. L SRINIVAS
S/O SRI A SATYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.303
Digitally signed ASHOK PARVA NO.68
by SUMA B N
EAST ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET
Location:
HIGH COURT BASAVANAGUDI
OF BANGALORE - 560 004.
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SAMEER SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES
CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY
NO.29, GROUND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:6591
WP No. 1529 of 2023
HC-KAR
2. UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
DR RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD
OPPOSITE RAIL BAWAN
RAJPATH AREA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP C.S., AAG A/W SMT. B.P. RADHA AGA FOR
R1;
SRI. B. PRAMOD, CGC FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET
ASIDE THE KARNATAKA LEGAL METROLOGY (ENFORCEMENT)
(AMENDMENT) RULES, 2021, BROUGHT INTO FORCE VIDE
NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. FCS 15 EBT 2020 (E-OFFICE),
DATED 03/12/2022, BY RESPONDENT NO.1 (ANNEXURE-A-
IMPUGNED/AMENDMENT RULES), AS REGARDS:
(i) RULE 8 (SIC RULE 7) OF THE IMPUGNED RULES, WHICH
SUBSTITUTES SCHEDULE IX OF THE KARNATAKA LEGAL
METROLOGY (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2011 (ANNEXURE-`B' -
RULES) WITH THE NEW SCHEDULE IX AS CONTAINED
THEREIN;
(ii) RULE 2 OF THE SAID IMPUGNED RULES, WHICH INSERTS A
NEW PROVISO IN RULE 3(1) OF THE PRINCIPAL RULES;
(iii) RULE 4 OF THE SAID IMPUGNED RULES, WHICH INSERTS
A NEW SUB-RULE IN RULE 3 OF THE PRINCIPAL RULES; AND
(iv) RULE 9 (SIC RULE 8) OF THE SAID IMPUGNED RULES,
WHICH SUBSTITUTES SCHEDULE X OF THE KARNATAKA LEGAL
METROLOGY (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2011 (ANNEXURE`B' -
RULES) WITH THE NEW SCHEDULE X AS CONTAINED THEREIN,
INSOFAR AS SL.NOS.1, 5, 6, 8, 9 AND 21 ARE CONCERNED.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:6591
WP No. 1529 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs:
"A. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the Karnataka Legal Metrology (Enforcement) (Amendment) Rules, 2021, brought into force vide Notification bearing No.FCS 15 EBT 2020 (e-office), dated 03/12/2022, by respondent No.1 (Annexure-`A'-Impugned/Amendment Rules), as regards:
(i) Rule 8 (sic Rule 7) of the Impugned Rules, which substitutes Schedule IX of the Karnataka Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011 (Annexure-`B' - Rules) with the new Schedule IX as contained therein;
(ii) Rule 2 of the said Impugned Rules, which inserts a new proviso in Rule 3(1) of the principal Rules;
(iii) Rule 4 of the said Impugned Rules, which inserts a new sub-rule in Rule 3 of the principal Rules; and
(iv) Rule 9 (sic Rule 8) of the said Impugned Rules, which substitutes Schedule X of the Karnataka Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011 (Annexure`B' -Rules) with the new Schedule X as contained therein, insofar as Sl.Nos.1, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 21 are concerned.
B. Alternative to Prayer (A)(iii) detailed above, issue an order by way of which, the words "reasonable time" be read into Rule 4 of the Karnataka Legal Metrology (Enforcement) (Amendment) Rules, 2021, brought into force vide Notification brought into force vide Notification bearing No.FCS 15 EBT 2020(e-office), dated 03.12.2022, by Respondent No.1(Annexure `A' -
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:6591 WP No. 1529 of 2023 HC-KAR Impugned/Amendment Rules), so as to read down the said provision."
2. Notification issued by the respondent authorities at Annexure-A, by which certain provisions of the Karnataka Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Amendment Rules 2021 have been amended. The proposed amendment are as under:
(a) Rule 3 is sought to be amended as under:
2. (i) In rule 3, in sub-rule(1) the following proviso after the existing proviso shall be inserted, namely:
Provided further that no person shall be granted a repairing license unless such person possesses such educational qualification/technical competency, and such other conditions as may be specified by the Controller from time to time.
3. (ii) In rule 3 of the said rules, for the sub-rule (4), the following shall be substituted, namely:-
Every license issued to a Manufacturer, Dealer and Repairer shall be valid for a period of two calendar years and may be renewed for a period every two calendar years, by the Controller or such other officer as may be authorized by him in this behalf on payment of fee as specified in the schedule IV.
(b) Schedule IX providing for enhancement of fee payable for verification and Stamping of Weights and Measures and Weighing and Measuring Instruments.-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:6591 WP No. 1529 of 2023 HC-KAR
(c) Schedule X wherein different yardstick adopted while imposing the compounding fee for various offences as found at Sl.No.1 of Schedule X.
3. While adverting to first ground of challenge namely the amendment to Rule 2 which proposes to amend Rule 3 by vesting power with a Controller to prescribe qualification/technical competency while granting a repairing licence, learned counsel for petitioners submits the same amounts to excessive delegation of power. Referring to Section 53(2)(c) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short `Act') he submits that when the Controller has no power under the Act, to prescribe any such qualification, any delegation as proposed would be contrary to the Act amounting to excessive delegation. He also refers to Section 14 of the Act to contend that even under Section 14, the powers of the Controller do not specify power imposing or prescribing qualification for issuance of the licence. Therefore, he submits when the Act does not provide for any such powers by way of subordinate legislation the State cannot confer powers which are not contemplated under the Act. However he submits if the qualification were to -6- NC: 2026:KHC:6591 WP No. 1529 of 2023 HC-KAR be prescribed by the State, petitioners would have no grievance in the matter.
4. At this juncture, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State furnishes a copy of the Notification dated 10.12.2020 issued by the respondent-State prescribing the qualification for the purpose of grant of licence. The qualification prescribed are at page 2 of the said notification which read as under:
ಕ ವರ ಾಹ ೆ
ಸಂ
1 ತೂಕಗಳ , ಅಳvÉಗಳ , ಾ ಕ ತೂಕದ ಕ ಷ, 10 ತರಗ-ಯ/0 ಉ-%ೕಣ 3ಾ4ರ5ೇಕು,
ಾಧನಗಳ , ಾ ಲ ಆ!ೋ ಮತು%
!ಾ &' (ೕಟ* ಗಳ ,
ದು 6ಾ7ನ ತೂಕದ ಯಂತ ಗಳ 8ಾಗೂ ಅಳ ೆ ಾಧನಗಳ , ಐ.F.ಐ., BG0ಮ, :.ಇ. ಅಥ9ಾ :.ಎJ.K.
2 9ೇ: ;< ( ಾ ಕ 8ಾಗು ಎ>ೆ ಾ? ), ದು 6ಾ7ನ ಆ!ೋ | ಪದ ಗಳ/0 ಉ-%ೕಣ 3ಾ4ರ5ೇಕು.
ಮತು% !ಾ &' (ೕಟ* ಗಳ , ೊ@ೕ3ೇA !ಾ ಂ ಗಳ , B¸ÉàA¤ìAUï
ಪಂಪDಗಳ ,
5. Since the State has prescribed the qualification and the learned counsel for the petitioners has already conceded that if the State prescribes the qualification, petitioners would not have any grievance and this Court do not find any reason to delve upon the said matter any further.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:6591 WP No. 1529 of 2023 HC-KAR
6. The second ground of challenge is with regard to amendment to Rules 3 and 4 providing period of licence, renewal and also power to the Controller to suspend or cancel the licence if he finds any statement given by the person holding licence to be incorrect or false. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said provision is uncontrolled capable of being misused by the Controller. He submits suspension or cancellation of licence would have severe civil consequences and if the statute does not provide the same, State cannot seek to delegate such power by way of rules or the regulations as the case may be. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Global Energy Limited and another Vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 570 referring to paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the said judgment, he emphatically submits that Section 23 of the Act which contemplates granting of licence by the Controller does not provide any provision whatsoever for its suspension or cancellation. That since the statute does not provide such a power, under the garb of rule making power, the legislature cannot delegate the power to the Controller, which runs -8- NC: 2026:KHC:6591 WP No. 1529 of 2023 HC-KAR contrary to the settled position of law. Referring to paragraph 41 of the Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Limited Vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, Goa and anr reported in 2002(4) MH.L.J which reads as under, "41. As we have pointed out hereinbefore the intention behind the exercise of revisional power cannot be read to bestow uncanalized arbitrary power in favour of the revising authority. There does not appear to be any difficulty in reading down the said sub-section. It is, therefore, necessary to save the provision in sub-section (3) of section 27 from being rendered invalid, they should be read down so as to read the words `reasonable time' in the said sub-section. Reading down of the said section would then be in keeping with the object of the Act, and also would save the impugned provisions from being rendered invalid."
he submits since the amendment providing power to the Controller to suspend and cancellation is sought to be bestowed without any clarity with regard to the timeline, if a clarification is provided as found at paragraph 41 of the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High Court, the purpose of the petition in this regard would be served.
7. In response, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the very provision providing for suspension and cancellation is explicit and self-explanatory in that licence or its renewal is only for a period of two years. Therefore, the -9- NC: 2026:KHC:6591 WP No. 1529 of 2023 HC-KAR apprehension being expressed by the petitioners that the Controller would exercise the power detriment to the interest of the licence holder irrespective of the timeline cannot be accepted.
8. This Court finds force in the submission made by learned Additional Advocate General. As already noted above, the Amendment Rules 3 and 4 providing for period of validity of licence, power to suspend and cancellation, holistically read would indicate that it pertains to holder of any licence "issued", "renewed" or "continued" under the provisions of the Act. Amendment to Rule 4 will have to be read in conjunction with amendment Rule 3 which itself provides validity of licence is for a period of two calendar years. Therefore, this Court do not see any need for issuing any clarification as insisted by the learned counsel for petitioners referring to Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the circumstance of the present case.
9. Coming to the third ground of challenge to the Amendment Rules providing for enhancement of fee at Schedule IX, the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that such fee would be levied at
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6591 WP No. 1529 of 2023 HC-KAR the hands of manufacturer, dealer, repairer and the end user. He submits since no special and additional service is being provided, there is no justification in respondent authorities enhancing the fee which is more than 100% in certain cases. In justification of this submission, he relies upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of (i) A.P.Paper Mills Limited Vs Govt. of A.P. and anr reported in (2000)8 SCC 167. (ii) Allied Resins and Chemicals Ltd., and anr Vs Government of West Bengal reported in (2010) 2 Cal LJ 581 and (iii) General Insurance Indian Oil Corporation Limited and anr Vs State of UP and others reported in 2023 SCC Online ALL 114.
10. Referring to aforesaid judgments, he submits that since the State has not given any justification for enhancement of the fee, the enhancement is arbitrary and requires to be set aside.
11. In response, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the ground of apprehension of multiple imposition of the fee as alleged at the hands of manufacturer, at the hands of dealer, at the hands of repairer and at the hands of customer is baseless and unfounded. He refers to Section 24 of
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6591 WP No. 1529 of 2023 HC-KAR the Act to clarify that verification and stamping of the weight or measure would occasion only when the instrument is being used in a transaction. If it is kept or possessed merely as a commodity to be sold, there is no question of imposition of any such fee. He submits, imposition of fee would be at the point of manufacturing and then when it is processed for the purpose of using the same in the transaction.
12. Learned counsel for petitioners submit if this clarification is provided petitioners would have no grievance of multiple imposition of fee.
13. Section 24 of the Act reads as under:
"24. Verification and stamping of weight or measure.--
(1) Every person having any weight or measure in his possession, custody or control in circumstances indicating that such weight or measure is being, or is intended or is likely to be, used by him in any transaction or for protection, shall, before putting such weight or measure into such use, have such weight or measure verified at such place and during such hours as the Controller may, by general or special order, specify in this behalf, on payment of such fees as may be prescribed.
(2) The Central Government may prescribe the kinds of weights and measures for which the verification is to be done through the Government approved Test Centre.
(3) The Government approved Test Centre shall be notified by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in such manner, on such terms and conditions and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6591 WP No. 1529 of 2023 HC-KAR (4) The Government approved Test Centre shall appoint or engage persons having such qualifications and experience and collect such fee on such terms and conditions for the verification of weights and measures specified under sub- Section (2) as may be prescribed."
14. Perusal of the aforesaid provision would indicate that there is no scope for multiple imposition of fee as apprehended by the petitioners. The clarification given by learned Additional Advocate General as noted above would suffice.
15. The fourth and the last ground of attack on the amendment is the purported discrimination exhibited by the respondent while imposing the compounding fee for various offences as found at Schedule X of the Amendment Rules. Learned counsel for petitioners points out that for the same offence, different yardstick is being adopted by the respondent- State while imposing the compounding fee. While for one group of persons found violating the very same offence, compounding fee is charged 10 times more than what is being charged to another group of persons committing the same offence.
16. In response learned Additional Advocate General submits on instructions that such classification is made considering the economic strata of the class of persons named
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6591 WP No. 1529 of 2023 HC-KAR in Schedule X. However, he submits that the said schedule will be reviewed by the concerned department and appropriate notification/clarification in this regard will be issued.
17. In view of the aforesaid submissions and representations made by learned Additional Advocate General and in the light of aforesaid reasons and conclusion clarifying the apprehension expressed by the petitioners on the amendment of rules, this Court do not see any reason to pass the orders as sought for. Petition accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4