Kerala High Court
Inspector Of Legal Metrology vs Kancor Ingredients Ltd on 7 January, 2016
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
THURSDAY,THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/17TH POUSHA, 1937
WA.No. 56 of 2014 IN WP(C).31805/2006
-------------------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31805/2006 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED13-06-2013
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 2 IN WPC:
----------------------------------------------------------
1. INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY
VST II, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 030.
2. CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P MANGUZHA
RESPONDENTS:
--------------------
KANCOR INGREDIENTS LTD.
KANCOR ROAD , ANGAMALY,SOUTH 683 573
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER - HR
R,R BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.)
R,R BY ADV. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
R,R BY ADV. SRI.BINU MATHEW
R,R BY ADV. SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
R,R BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS
R,R BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE THARAKAN
R BY SRI.ABRAHAM MARKOS
R BY SRI.MITHUN MARKOSE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLYHEARD ON 07-01-2016, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Writ Appeal No.56 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2016
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
This writ appeal is filed by the respondents in W.P.(C)31805/06 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge setting aside the impugned orders and directing refund of the amounts deposited by the respondent.
2. We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, engaged in the manufacture of Oleoresins, essential oils of spices, colour pigments used in the food industry, etc. For the purpose of manufacturing, the respondent has set up a factory at Angamaly. It is stated that for the storage of its raw materials and other products, the respondent has erected 11 horizontal storage tanks, which according to the respondent, are not liable to be caliberated or verified by the appellants in exercise of their powers conferred under the provisions contained in Standards of Weights and Writ Appeal No.56 of 2014 : 2 :
Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Rules 1992. However, they were issued a notice requiring them to verify the storage tanks and accordingly the details were furnished as per Ext.P6. Subsequently by Ext.P10, the appellant was directed to remit verification fee and additional fee for delay of 24 quarters. The liability was disputed by the appellant/respondent and finally they filed an appeal before the Controller of Legal Metrology in terms of Section 69 of the Enforcement Act. That appeal was rejected by Ext.P14 order, where the liability of the appellant for verification of the storage tanks was confirmed. It is in this background, the writ petition was filed where the respondent sought to quash the aforesaid proceedings and also Ext.P16 consequential demand, apart from seeking a declaration that the storage tanks are not weights or measures and that the Enforcement Act do not apply to the storage tanks.
4. In the counter affidavit filed, the appellants disputed the claim of the respondent and asserted that the storage tanks in question are weights and measures and are, therefore, are liable to be verified in terms of the provisions contained in 1985 Act and the Rules. After Writ Appeal No.56 of 2014 : 3 :
hearing the parties, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, finding that before the issuance of Exts.P10, 14 and 15, no inspection was conducted by the authorities. The learned Single Judge also ordered that the amount remitted by the appellant under protest shall be refunded. It is aggrieved by this judgment, the appeal is filed.
5. The contention raised by the learned Government Pleader is that the storage tanks in question being weights and Measures, are amenable to the Enforcement Act and the Rules while according to the learned counsel for the respondent the tanks in question are mere storage tanks which are not used as a weighing or measuring instruments to be subjected to the process of verification as provided under the Act.
6. We have considered the submissions made.
7. The Standards of Weights and Measurements (Enforcement) Act, 1985 was enacted by the Government of India, to provide for enforcement of standards of weights and measure established under the Standards of Weights and Measurements Act, 1976 and for matters connected therewith. Chapter VII of the Act provides for 'Verification Writ Appeal No.56 of 2014 : 4 :
and Stamping of Weights or Measures'. In exercise of its power under Section 72, the State of Kerala have framed the Standards of Weights and Measures Enforcement Rules, 1992. Rule 14 provides for 'Periodical internal for the verification or weights or measures and specific provision has been made herein for verification of storage tanks. However, a perusal of Chapter VII of the Enforcement Act would show that the liability for verification and stamping is only in respect of any weight or measure in the possession or custody or control of any person in circumstances indicating that such weight or measure is being used by him in any transaction or for industrial production or for protection. The term 'weight or measure' is defined in Section 2(zd) of Standards of Weight and Measures Act, 1976 as a weight or measure specified by or under the 1976 Act and it includes a weighing or measuring instrument. The term 'weighing or measuring instrument' has been defined in Section 2(zc) as any object, instrument, apparatus or device, or any combination thereof, which is, or is intended to be, used, exclusively or additionally, for the purpose of making any weighment or measurement, and includes any appliance, accessory or Writ Appeal No.56 of 2014 : 5 : part associated with any such object, instrument, apparatus or device. Therefore, for invoking the provisions requiring verification of stamping of storage tanks against the respondent, the primary requirement is that the appellants should satisfy themselves that the storage tank in question is a weight or measure in the possession of the appellants and that the same is being intended or likely used by them in any transaction or for industrial production or for protection.
8. Apart from the fact that the appellant is a manufacturer of various items as stated by us before, there is nothing before us to indicate that the appellants have either conducted any inspection or collected any materials indicating that the storage tanks in question would fall under the Enforcement Act. It was, therefore, that the learned Single Judge concluded that the impugned orders were issued without conducting any inspection. Such a conclusion of the learned Single Judge, on the facts as disclosed, cannot be said to be faulty. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal, directing that it will be open to the appellants to inspect the premises of the respondent. On such inspection if the appellants find that the storage tanks in question are Writ Appeal No.56 of 2014 : 6 :
weights or measures as provided in Section 24 of the Enforcement Act or Rule 14 of the Enforcement Rules 1992, it would be open to them to call upon the respondent to get the storage tanks verified and stamped in terms of the provisions contained in the Act and Rules mentioned above, levying fee and additional fee as prescribed under the Act or Rules, as the case may be. Such inspection shall be conducted, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that if on inspection as above it is found that the storage tanks are not liable to be verified, the amounts deposited by the appellants be refunded to them and if it is otherwise, the amount be appropriated accordingly.
Writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD JUDGE jes