(1.) The petitioners are running a textile showroom in Ernakulam. They made renovation of that showroom and made an advertisement in Mathrubhumi daily dated 15.2.2000 regarding the re-opening of the showroom. In the said advertisement, it is stated that the plinth area of the showroom has been increased from 3600 sq.ft. to 6200 sq.ft. On coming across Exhibit P1, the second respondent issued Exhibit P2 notice to the petitioners stating that the measurement regarding the area of the showroom has not been expressed in standard unit and therefore, the same is in violation of the provisions in Section 11 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. They were called upon to show cause why they should not be prosecuted. The petitioners submitted Exhibit P3 objection. The said objection was considered and rejected by the second respondent by Exhibit P5 decision dated 29.6.2004. It was followed by Exhibit P6 order, issued by the first respondent, granting sanction for prosecuting the petitioners for violation of the provisions in Section 11 of the Act. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Exhibits P5 and P6. According to the petitioners. Section 11 covers only goods sold and services rendered. The prescription of the area of a showroom in non-standard unit will not be hit by Section 11 of the Act. So, the petitioners seek to quash Exhibits P5 and P6.
(2.) The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, supporting the impugned orders. They have also pointed out that pursuant to Exhibit P6, Exhibit R2(a) complaint has been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Perumbavoor. The said complaint has been submitted before the interim order passed by this Court was communicated. According to the respondents, the area of the showroom should have been expressed in square metres, instead of square feet. So, the same is an offence under Section 11(c) of the Act, it is submitted.
(3.) Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.