M/S Khaitan Electricals Ltd vs The Union Of India By The Addl Secy on 2 April, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 5]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Khaitan Electricals Ltd vs The Union Of India By The Addl Secy on 2 April, 2008

Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 KARNATAKA 168, 2008 (6) ALJ (NOC) 1297 (KAR.) = AIR 2008 KARNATAKA 168, 2008 (4) AIR KANT HCR 373, 2008 A I H C 2985, (2008) 70 ALLINDCAS 538 (KAR), 2008 (70) ALLINDCAS 538, (2009) 2 KANT LJ 64, (2008) ILR (KANT) 3370, (2008) 2 EFR 656

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

IN THEHHIGH coum' or KARNATAKA AT    --

nxmn was THE 2-=4 DAYJQFAPREL     A

BEFOREVK     _ é   _
THE HON'BLE MR. .ﬂ J_E:!fIGE"A-S   
WRIT PETITION No.9oS1}5  % %

nMnga:_-c;w_.  _  x 

z.r.:-c':..A.z..       %

3313 FLOOR, 84, J'. 5.; 

3A:e«;=..e.~:.x:1-1'-:."e.v.-T.-.V ban .,.;2;2:  

' u
van.-

  L A    PETI'l'l0NER~
(By M/SM 'ADVo.')«

a.*m;.;

I-ﬁr it-.-- inns!

. ' 1, I rm 'Umv:1 0? {REM

~ _ BI 'H-IE-_ADDI'ﬂONAL SECRETARY %
 .  €5't3CunuuiﬁER AFFAIRS
 Knrem EAHAVAN

f\lI£II 'I

&'\§f._'-3%it'S'"1":"Li~t'i" COWTRGLLER or
% LEGAL METROLOGY. FLYI-NG8QU_AD -n
 E0-in, iLLi asxma Roan
* BANGALORE - 560052

 1::

 REi'$l"I.'.'IﬁﬁEi\I"'i%

A % M (By SR1 N DEWIADASS. Si. COii'?niﬁEB~-ﬁiiﬁ R-1-

SRI RB. SA'I'l-IYA_NARAYANA'"SINGH,  R.-2] C

is



 WRTT PETITION IS FILED UNDER     
THE coNs'rmmoN OFINDIA, WITH A 1>RAYER.m:_DussH.T%:D « .
COBEPOUNDING NOTICES ma Q0.1.:2005.A_ND 18.Q.2t3$5 xssumnooo

BY R2 VIDE ANNEx.A. AND A1; DECLARE' z2u:,:E-- ,._'.{'1§-33} j
STANDARD OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (PACKAGE . AND.
COMMODITIES) RULES 1977 AS '!J!;?R.A.'!!R.'?;$- 'or? 'ma 

STANDARD on wmzoms AND MEA_s.uRE'D_At:T, 1:;f76;,¢:   

This Writ 1=c,=,t;'.t:«_~.r-..  onion,

coming on for pmnoét-mcezgicrgt   tho Court

pm.oou:1.% :1-.ef-alkruvi:-13:'  ---   

The pc&ﬁﬁDn:fV'iD..bofDﬁn:  (Agog! ---...........'-"--,-,- for -'same 'f
writ of  D   ==-.,.;...+'-4*-----g-am: name" " a in case
HD5163?' as-.-.+.=.~: '   V,-and 13.2.2005 which an:

iTrp*agﬁec'i  A1. The petitioner has also

 , &_Doug,§:i-it.fo1_?'a y;vn't   Rule 6 (1) (d) ofstnnclmd Weights

 and commodities) Rules 1977 ('the

ms-Afar {as ultravixea of the Standard Weights and

V VV  and commodities) Act, 1976 ('the Act' 

2, T1_1.. case of the  "* that they are engaged

  .%.'..".::g%gﬁr;Daiiavcrfhe county 





  "    d

Pradesh and Karnataka. The petitioner  if   it

fans in two separate packages.    it

and shackles etc is packed in   

blades. The blades are   " it

with top and  vs_,:_1're._   mt;-.=-....

ll'

.. I,"
at?

........,....... ......    _V - -e is
reserved    the petitioner':
name,   manufacturing date
(monthLang.!'.' serial number, the MRP.
the contents of it  declared by printing and by
tabeis.   an  are said to be clearly visible in

 'a.  conspietious manner. The petitioner  _

21.0-..z1.tlI.eI,:$.!!.1.a.%i.e*..:.-*.sll_-,'i:~.

M.' ,....'  11 snnnz 1... ___-___s
\.ruHfGan.:3.:.§r"_ gnu: Luv sulfa'. uu J..l..J.u£UUiJ inc IIGUUIIII

V'-».1espo1iciei1t is said to have seized one -pie-packed' package of

 fan on the ground, declaration of manufacturing

V'  xtlionth and year is aﬁxed by a separate sticker on the

it package of ceiling thus. Accordingly, compounding notice

I
J1

'or



dated 20.1.2005 was ieeuw intimating mgistrotion- M

for violation of the provisions of theﬁct.  V'

the petitioner is said to have   _

requirements. the second   V   r " L'

action would be  The thegfogequeatione
the mtion of the    "ii the ﬁoiind

tun'--t the noiioe i-snot 'u3iaim:;b1e,.téeinoe'.  had in

fact    questions the
very apphonhjhtfof  ~  the validity of Rule
6(1)(d) eundei'w};i¢;:.meh:Vt_:aquuement for display of month

and  is;   ..  

  __hAT'he seeonei__Ie'apondent would attempt to juetitjr the

   against the petitioner since according to the

 te*m;;1ent there is violation of Rule 6(1)(d) of the

to  as the month and year has not been

 as required therein. With regard to the

  aggnéabmty of the provision of the Act and   _.r

 the RI.1_le in quee.L..n both +.h..-- -..emnd..-r.$ No.1 and 2 a-.ek

.*.-3 jus*.'££v the same. The S  pm'-visions of th' ' 't, 

,.L

'a



and also the legal position Iefened to and    

petitioner as wet} as the respondents      V'

while analya1n' g the case on its merits, " ' 4.011 the said rival an M.G.Kuma.r, learned stitN.oevadm.

learned Senior   and Ed
  Advocate for the
second     V'   ' '

5_    or otherwise of the

notices 18.2.2006 issued to the petitigrnrqf, ittcvcnltd' Be tiypjnopliate to consider the contention % t 'with thgthe egigiheahinty of the Act vaJ.i_ti.i1y Qf tl_1_n-_.nr,n...c_-.r, The 1c«E.."£|.ﬁ ccuneel hr t...e p% reﬁan- "Ii um uwiuiu-n muriezeﬁ by Praaiesh flourt: in the case of TITAN

7.' LIMITED, BANGALORE ---va- scmon " Ihj:sPEm'oR, LEGAL METROLOGY W & M DEPT. & ormcas (AIR 2003 AP 175) tn contend that the provisions orthe Act 1 1?.

do not come into three until a speciﬁc' notrﬁca' in this regard. Learned counsel V 1(3)(d) of the Act to contend that if issued speclfﬁ ' g the classes s,Atj3e__ e 'V ' applicable to each at w.'..-..*er...ed that as issued anti as each at the euteet, to the product 2 petitioner. It is further the Rule 6(1)(d) of the Rules 39 of the Act does not pmvide for dispin3r_ cf year in which the product is _ even though Section 83 of the . 'Act'~.t_he to mice, t_h..e m.........m- d.% % I ﬁn.....e "ale as 1:: t.....''- riatur cf Riﬂe 6ii'iﬁ} an ,1-,--.e-... .e1+~e-se (2.-1; cf Siib~secticn (2; in Section 33 or the mun" Jbt come to the aid of the Rule melon' s authority "it: 39 of the Act itself does not contemplate such rcfquirement.

6. On bchalfof the respondents. it is mnmztibd dcc1a1o' ' n of the Andhza Pxadcah "'13§t'ha:nd' A this Court and in any event, cormctly appmc1a' ted the posiuon '~ .__C_)13. u_thr.= ' Qt: mgpc_:n.dcnf_e pig... jud;-5--('rut "' It an-aster. .9-ﬁnch of the asmtt;- the case of S'dBASH .-tnaartttoits smrs or MAHARASHTI-its (stir? Bombay 29.9,). jé it is contended that oonsiiitﬁngtmntiﬁcation datnd 25.9.1977 is issued ht-ntgingpzoviaiona of sections 1. 2, 3, 39, efnd _83,u tiotiﬁcation is suﬁcient to bring into % rmce vfl:|ti:'A(§tt~:§nd aattiéuch tttte ,t;t_=§_;__.: has to m-'I..........pl§,' with __....I The m:-.%'*'-..'..-.1 that the classes at?' guuu 18 too far consiiming range of products that an: manuiiwtured and la in the market. Even with regard to the validity af " stat 6(l){d) of the Rules, it is oontnnded that Section" 39 in wide enough In cover the requirement to display the month iz and year of manufacture since the month one of the mquiremt to identity V to its life span and the othezwiee. the object of the get A A whee it ie e:I.z_aet_e:_! the In tizis mhg,-e.-.:.».d, etauee {e.=.}t.ts% when as of the Act pmvidee'-the to any other or may be that while interpreting the -interpretation no as to reduce the legielhtien. eh-meet he avoiied he held by the Honfhie _.Su14:tlB.El1_¢" ceimh in the ease of A.N. ROY, % hhcomhttestonhn o14*%t=o:_.t(_:h -.t_I--8UREe.!*! .s.=tt.A..a.a. stzeet: -

tgemeteeeet % tea avg-.I-I \:._"-7' c A '3'. Hating considered the contentions put forth in this a perusal of the notiﬁcation dated 26.9.1977 would ' ' te that the Central Government by the said notiﬁes' tion has appointed the 26"' Day ofsephember 1977 as the day on is which the provisions ofthe Act indicated "

into force. Among the pmmm ' xV',t.'_ithé»..A kt provisions relevant for the purpose ._ 1, 2. 3. 39 and 33 and e t Section 1 hag .%m is n m.|ev.a.-nt in the c:.~:1t..-.xt 6? we an 'aahaif (if t'ﬁt'= fieﬁﬁiiejw. has been bmught hot-lid he a sepamte each of the clauses menﬂo}ned__ _ (3) to Section-1 cannot be be a vnindiealzing the exams of goods In 't V. tiiie though may gtlxateﬁve, ""'7"7'.&"

.. iior the z-.35-..-...-'-I-. t..at .. is % wi-'5' in: -Lug:-..%.".ras':.-'L'._'-éjé--,A'us'tit th* "er-_y' pmﬁﬁ 61 me cannot be '-»achieve:i,Atif'aueh a narrow interpzetationis made. This is so _ if that was the intention", one cannot expect" the inane of ﬂesh notiﬁcation as and when new chases of products are manufactuned and sold 'm the market name sot J 13 in the present day of continued pmv1s1on' ' of the Act is clear 2 A' 5, 2 should display certain infoxmaﬁonlcn the said information is 430 be fur.msi1ed__ A s d paclcay. I n_t%%;=.-,-Lg.-.;-ar;:g :4» ;;-;~r..-.-,-,-{Es-.e -.-°.:-.-.v I.~.-cw-.. by the learrnw F'-mdesh aspect the oiviaion sf [court in summsn Ammnoss has noliced the my 25.9¢1m enforcing the provisions of Sections" 1_, 2, M so and a similar argmnent co of petitioner had been rejected. As . of~t]1e the expzcsscd. in. E -§.L. by raem.-.1-. of the &.--.:..a-:_',' 3% %-.«a.-:. is :33- and tlicﬁore, 1' of the tiiatcthe provisions cfthe Act would be applicable even any other speciﬁc notiﬁcation rcgaxding the classes V. of? goods as contended and as such the Act would be i J2 'tn applicable to the pmduct manufactured by I; an, ~. ._ \ 3; With reizamd to the val1d' ie;é"er Ruie 6t1;q;;)tvepf*§the-mnles, n A package orronin The said rule has available under 83 No -- doubt, as ountended by the learned 'f§r'nV£h¢% the speciﬁcs of the rule

-....-.- '_ --- --.' -.--....-- __ _. H '»e._lI.a.u:..~_u-. I,' I tn 122:2} and t_h.e E huh-elnneee tines

-tat with regard tn ﬂat: mwtlz ....-..'=-'' y-......-". I-Ia-.-ac".-m', suircinuss-.:iai) that the rake mamn" ' g power" " 'S anyfbtlner matter which requires to be or may be The leamed counsel for the petitioner however . that the name does not prowl' e the powers since' , none 'of the sub-sections to 39 the Act would la apec1.fy'- with regard to the rndrca' ' tion of M manufacture. Though Section 4 mama' ' an spemﬁcany, ' with mean! to ' mg rrndu t 1 rveauircd in r t p1'.:"=-" cf '.'.'.'.c ;.f=,t'.':'."..'.'.:ﬁ't.5.4.!.!§;"."ﬂ£--~.ff.n-:.".:§§'.' iwgzau-.1; .-.2:

detﬁiis agave. gas the aaiae inciuﬂing the cieiajis the product came into of object:

and in queltion would of the billwere stated tn and clause 5' me wim mama to the details to he the startle would provide for oonaurner reepeet gt' packaged e9rrrrI_1a¢_i__it_ies. while ....;...:;I.:.;';. '' '.

',pl.%-J_Vn'lIu;'' Au " uaauau % '''m""---&*-'... the '-...........,-M''--%. Among it is nine sininri "in the 'frrat iﬁr'iii:afi:m'-- pfj datrsﬁtrf manufacture and data.-. of expiry would aim be for appropriate products. If such object of the law ' is kept in view, even in respect of the products rnanufactured by the petitioners herein since the fan --is I J2 'nu period arm, mamufactum of the pmd__uc1.:_ in ' it A aspect for the consumer In decide _i purchase the same or not an».*i__v'£2ss;z such such pmduct, the and _e1spect to be diep.l-.=-._I,re:1= 39 of the Act ___ .. a. .........-a:..,.._n... gent]! gig framed emenztamg """ H 1 .' 'i. it under auh clause (ed) to the Act. Even otherwise, Sub-aectiqn' (2) that the power speciﬁed in sn;b~cAlaueec:v(a}Vtb make rule for carrying out the

- v cféthe without piejudice to the generality of A auch, I am ofthe opinion that any the cl.i_;I_u:.t .2' tie Act he a. 1_I_rho_le _._._.__~.|. i;_ .....:.I 1.... .'-...-...I.'.1 In {Main manna-In-"I -I nun nlnn cannot, HG null us: uivunun nu uuu augnau", I mu inure-r by the decision rendered by the Hozﬁiie Siif:ier:ie= " czouzt in the case of A N ROY, oommssromr-m or-* POLICE (cited aupra),_ wheiein the I-lorfble Supaeme Oourthne stated I J1 ,0 'P1813 with mgaxd to the manner of interpretation rules. Hence the challenge to mlgatiygay M' x and the same ia accord-ingly in he :1- ;_- 119 ~1_i._L1: in "'uiipuguut'u iii min ﬁuu3:.m,--.a- % -.-.-:3-.....-1" inciicatc that ﬂing autmiiiea that the year is aﬁxad by a in In pe1:ition§{r,._ pmvid. _ ea wk" _ mmd to the diai1)iay_ p£I'nci' winch status that all the givenatoem: place-orthe pr:-.-r

-'rwiicllv -u-I-

sii':i--ﬁﬁa {1} 6f" ' 'a':r: 6 '-w-.'ra':': ihvviie "mat thereto a deﬁnite pm and conspicuous deonmuon . in accordance with the provisions. Thenafmvc, Rule 2(m)and6wouklindicatcthemam1crinwhichthediuplay I la

3. is to be made. In thisbackglound, the notice with the violation would only ind1catn' t tbatthcé "

aﬁxed by a sepamhz atziclmr. said Rule and since "vluﬁtl the vit.rmt.9r mm n L3t_!Q§l_!l.I'l_lt_'.l_:LO!::§""t__n_éi.._VWl_=Ll, gtithgxiﬁgg ﬂnluulu unvc ul.a.u..I. .usu.I.Ii.a I.-.fI«lr'(.u'.'I4-I-E'.-iV:,I.I->1: ulatﬁl-lg ».I-'FIJI-IF-I-53 uuu. uau permissible in any 061:!-

without jdctnilu of the matter, on the facts at' A impugned in this petition eannothe nt ofclmity and not being speciﬁc any':

:3, ._g §g_t_§§_nn.r;g nt- . wanna-._1._,.i " 1:3; tn the xeauit, the foiiawing: QBIZEB

i) 'I'heW1itPetitionisa1lowedh1parttmdthe notices datnd 20.1.2005 and 18.2.3305 which I J2 .4 It an: impugned at Annemue A quashed.

ii) The praycr in so far fin,' V .

Rule 6(1)(d) Measures a K Rulca, 1977 as .e*s_§;=;;1_-:1-wm _.:.,_m_a ';.-ad .. 'Iq-

~.3711"~; '_'V exinnt :1 "Ti:

iii) _ Ahc[b1ﬁs

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court