MOHAN MEAKINS BREWERIES LIMITED DALIGANJ LUCKNOW MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED MODINAGAR MOHAN MEAKINS BREWERIES LIMITED GHAZIABAD Vs. CONTROLLER OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES U P LUCKNOW:CONTROLLER OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES U P LUCKNOW:CONTROLLER OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES U P LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The appellants are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Indian made foreign liquor and country liquor, under licence granted to them under the provisions of U.P. Excise Act. The appellants have installed vats in their Breweries' premises for the storage of liquor. The liquor stored in vats is bottled and sold under the supervision of officers of the Excise Department. The Inspector of Weights and Measures issued notices to the appellants calling upon them to get their vats verified, calibrated and stamped in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellants preferred appeals against the notice issued by the Inspector on the ground that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the appellants' undertaking, manufacturing alcohol but the appeal was dismissed by the Controller of Weights and Measures. The appellants made petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the orders of the respondents. Before the High Court' the appellants contended that the provisions of the Act were attracted to the appellants' undertaking only at the stage of sale and anything done in the process of manufacture and storage of liquor could not be subjected to the provisions of the Act and the notice issued by the Inspector of Weights and Measures was without any authority of law. It was further urged that the calibration of vats storing liquor was not necessary and the direction issued by the respondents was without any authority of law. Similar petitions were filed by the manufacturers of Synthetic Rubber and Campher. All the three sets of petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court by a common judgment and order dated December 5, 1985. The Division Bench allowed the petitions filed by the manufacturers of Synthetic Rubber and Campher but it dismissed the petitions filed by the manufacturers of liquor on the finding that the provisions of the Act and the notifications issued thereunder are applicable to the manufacturers of liquor in the distillery and the notices issued by the respondents for the calibration of the storage vats were legal and valid. Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present petitions for special leave to appeal.

(3.) Dr. L. M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellants urged that the High Court committed error in holding that the storage vats are required to be calibrated under the provisions of the Act. He added that the provisions of the Act would apply if measures are used for transaction in trade and commerce, but keeping alcohol in storage vats does not amount to transactions in trade or commerce. Learned counsel emphasised that unless the storage vats are used in transaction for trade and commerce the provisions of the Act would not be attracted. In order to appreciate the contention, we would briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the Act.