Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Smt.Jyothi Kiran contends that the order under appeal is unsustainable inasmuch as through the order impugned and through judicial interpretation of a provision of law, a requirement, otherwise mandatory in law, is substantially rendered directory through purposive interpretation. According to her, the order impugned suffers from contradictions in findings, because the learned Single Judge having accepted that the petitioner would have done better if the name of person/official address for consumer complaints is provided on the package/bottle ought not to have held the declaration on packaged commodity is sufficient compliance of Rule 6(2). She draws the attention of the Court to the unamended and amended Rule 6(2) and contends that the rule making authority both from experience and also to achieve efficacy to the objects of the Act deleted the words if available from Rule 6(2). The deletion of the words if available by way of amendment ought to be kept in mind while interpreting the amended Rule. According to her, the Court examines the legislative history and the improvement introduced to the language in a Section or Rule while interpreting the section or the statute. The interpretation now adopted by the learned Single Judge, according to respondents, re-introduces the element of discretion or option in furnishing the declaration by the manufacturer, packer etc., under the Act. According to her, the statement of objects and reasons together with the long title and the Act make it clear that the Parliament has made the Act with a view to regulating weight, measure, unit standards of weights, measures on packaged goods etc., and the Act is intended for public interest or good and protection of rights of consumers. She refers to Sections 18 and 52 of the Act and also Rule 6(2) of the Rules and submits that in consumer interest the manufacturer, packer etc., of pre-packaged commodity must satisfy the requirement of declarations on such pre- packaged commodity as prescribed in the Rules. Rule 6(2) makes it mandatory for the manufacturer to disclose the name, address, telephone number, E-mail address of the person who can be or the office which can be contacted in case of consumer complaints. According to her, every package shall bear the name, address, telephone number, E-mail address of the person who can be or office which can be contacted in case of consumer complaints. Juxtaposing the said requirement with the details recorded in panchanama, she contends that the petitioner has not furnished the details of person-in- charge or office address for consumer complaint. As already noted, we prefer to excerpt again the details on label of the seized stock:

Section 18. Declarations on pre-packaged commodities:-

(1) No person shall manufacture, pack, sell, import, distribute, deliver, offer, expose or possess for sale any pre-packaged commodity unless such package is in such standard quantities or number and bears thereon such declarations and particulars in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) Any advertisement mentioning the retail sale price of a pre-

packaged commodity shall contain a declaration as to the net quantity or number of the commodity contained in the package in such form and manner as may be prescribed.

Rule 6 (2):

Every package shall bear the name, address, telephone number, E-mail address of the person who can be or the office which can be contacted, in a case of consumer complaints.

Sections 15 and 16 authorize the functionaries under the Act, to exercise power of inspection, seizure, forfeiture of pre-packaged commodity contravening the mandatory requirement of the law. Section 18 deals with the obligation of person who is defined by Section 2(m) of the Act to manufacture, sell etc., a pre-packaged commodity in accordance with the prescribed manner. Section 18 begins with the words no person shall manufacture, pack, sell etc. for sale any pre- packaged commodity unless such package is in such standard quantities or numbers and bears thereon such declarations and particulars in such manner as may be prescribed. Therefore, the section imposes a mandatory obligation on the person to print the declarations as prescribed by the Rules. Section 52(2) (j) authorizes the Central Government to make Rules for the standard quantities or number in the manner in which the packages shall bear the declarations and particulars under sub section (1) of Section 18. In exercise of rule making power under Section 52 (2) (j), the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 were made and notified under Section 52 (2)

Let us next examine the conclusion arrived at in the order under appeal viz., that by purposive interpretation the declaration made as noted through panchanama dated 24.04.2018 would satisfy the requirement of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6. The Act deals with measurement by quantity, weight, length etc. and provides for a standard followed in the commercial parlance. The manufacture, sale etc., by pre-packaged commodity is also accepted by the Act. The Court, while interpreting the provisions made in public interest or intended for the benefit, interprets by keeping in view the entire conspectus of statutory scheme. Let us hasten to add that there exists distinction between measurement of quantity in the presence of a buyer and on the other acceptance of quantity, date of pack etc., basing on the declaration made on the pre- packaged commodity and buying the commodity by accepting those details. Rules 2011 deal with sale of pre-packaged commodity. Therefore, in this context we need to take judicial notice of hordes of pre-packaged commodities flooding the markets and the need for complete compliance with the Rules. The Rules prescribe a few declarations required to be made by manufacturer or packer. The declaration referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 deals with the consumers right to complain to a person or office if he has a grievance. The details under sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 which substantially deal with manufacturer, packer etc., if are treated as complying with sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, we are of the view that such interpretation defeats the purpose of the Act and the Rules. Therefore, in our view the situation directly admits literal interpretation and for interpreting the Rule, this Court does not prefer purposive interpretation.