Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1) COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA v. INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION

2) M.NIZAMUDEEN v. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED AND OTHERS

3) AJITSINH ARJUNSINH GOHIL v. BAR COUNSEL OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

4) RAM DEEN MAURYA (DR). V STATE OF UP AND OTHERS

5) STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. SAJNAY Mr.Lakshman contends that the Act prescribes standard weights and measures for packaged commodities for manufacture and sale in the country. The declarations from their very nature are intended for public good and avoid exploitation of consumer by the manufacturer or packer of a pre-packaged commodity. He contends that Section 18 mandates that declarations as prescribed are made on a pre-

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.