KHAITAN ELECTRICALS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this court seeking for issue of writ of certiorari to quash the compounding notices in case No. 61687 dated 20-1-2005 and 18-2-2005 which are impugned at Annexure-A and A1. The petitioner has also sought for a writ to declare Rule 6 (1) (d) of Standards of Weights and Measures (Package and Commodities)Rules 1977 ('the Rules' for short) as ultra vires of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Package and Commodities) Act, 1976 ('theact' for short ).

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that they are engaged in selling ceiling fans all over the country including Andhra Pradesh and karnataka. The petitioner packs the ceiling fans in two separate packages. The main motor with rod and shackles etc. is packed in one package without the blades. The blades are packed separately. The main motor with top and bottom canopies are packed in square corrugated box package. The base area of package is left blank. All the four side areas of the package has been reserved for principal display area wherein the petitioner's name, address, description of fan, manufacturing date (month and year), model number, serial number, the MRP, the contents of the box etc. are declared by printing and by labels. All these information are said to be clearly visible in a plain and conspicuous manner. The petitioner therefore contends that the declaration on the package is totally in conformity with the rules. On 11 -1 -2005 the second respondent is said to have seized one pre-packed package of khaitan fan on the ground, declaration of manufacturing month and year is affixed by a separate sticker on the package of ceiling fans. Accordingly, compounding notice dated 20-1-2005 was issued intimating registration of case for violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules. Though the petitioner is said to have explained the compliance of requirements, the second respondent indicated that further action would be initiated. The petitioner therefore questions the action of the second respondent not only on the ground that the notice is not sustainable, since the petitioner had in fact complied with the requirements but also questions the very applicability of the Act and also the validity of Rule 6 (1) (d) under which the requirement for display of month and year is indicated.

(3.) THE second respondent would attempt to justify the action initiated against the petitioner since according to the second respondent there is violation of Rule 6 (1) (d) of the Rules inasmuch as the month and year has not been displayed as required therein. With regard to the applicability of the provisions of the Act and the validity of the Rule in question both the respondents No. 1 and 2 seek to justify the same. The specific provisions of the Act, Rules and also the legal position referred to and relied on by the petitioner as well as the respondents would be adverted to while analysing the case on its merits.