Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

: G.ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE

1. The petitioner is a registered trader who carries on sale of imported rechargeable LED flash lights. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the notice issued by the respondent No.3 purportedly in exercise of the power conferred under Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, compounding the alleged offence punishable under Section 36(1) of the said Act on payment of compounding fee of Rs.25,000/-. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction quashing sub-rule 3 of Rules 32 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and is ultra - vires the Act;
2. As could be seen from the material available on record, the petitioner‟s premises was inspected by the team of the Legal Metrology, Government of NCT of Delhi on 22.11.2013 and it was found that one of the packets containing rechargeable LED flash lights did not bear the word „Rs./ `‟. In other words, the MRP shown on the package was not prefixed with symbol „Rs./`‟ but it was merely shown „MRP 299.00‟. Accordingly an inspection report/memo dated 22.11.2013 was issued by the respondent No.3/Asst. Controller of Legal Metrology. On 05.12.2013, the petitioner made a representation stating that the omission of the word „Rs./`‟ was only on account of a minor printing error and there was no malafide intention as was apparent from the fact that the mistake was found on only one packet among many packets searched by the inspection team. However, the respondent No.3 chose to initiate proceedings for compounding under Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Controller/Assistant Controller on 09.01.2014 for compounding the alleged offence of contravention of provisions of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
6. Section 52 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make Rules by notification for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Power has been conferred on the State Governments also under Section 53 of the Act to make rules after consultation with the Central Government to carry out the provisions of the Act.
7. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 52, the Central Government made the Rules called the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as „the Packaged Commodities Rules‟). Rule 6 of the Packaged Commodities Rules provides for the declarations to be made on every package and as per Clause (e) of Rule 6(1), every package shall bear thereon the retail sale price of the package. The word „retail sale price‟ has been defined under Rule 2(m) as under:-

19. As we could see, the Packaged Commodities Rules alone dealt with the declaration on pre-packaged commodities and the penalty for contravention. Hence, the compounding fees prescribed under Rule 32(3) of the said Rules has been rightly applied by the Respondents.

20. It is no doubt true that Schedule XI of the Delhi Legal Metrology (Regulation) Rules, 2011 includes the offence of non-compliance of declaration in respect of pre-packaged commodity by manufacturer or dealer under Section 18(1) of the Act. However, in the absence of any provision in the said Rules providing for such declaration on pre-packaged commodity and non-compliance thereof, the said Rules cannot be made applicable for compounding the offences of contravention of Packaged Commodities Rules, particularly after insertion of a specific provision for compounding under Rule 32(3) of the Packaged Commodities Rules.