KOCHOUSEPH CHITTILAPPILLY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals impugn the common judgment dated 13.3.2013 of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.10917 of 2011, 20384 of 2011 and 20387 of 2011. The writ petitions were taken up for hearing along with Crl.M.C.s filed by the petitioners in the writ petitions, who were incidentally being prosecuted on a complaint filed by the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Circle-1, Irinjalakkuda. The prosecution alleged violation of Rule 6(1A) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Packaged Commodities Rules' for short) and a consequent contravention of Section 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1976 Act' for short). While the judgment, to the extent it covered the Crl.M.C's, was set aside by the Supreme Court in proceedings carried by the petitioners herein, and the Crl.M.C's remanded for fresh consideration by this court, the present appeals are against the findings in the judgment in relation to the contentions urged in the writ petitions where the validity of Rule 6(1A) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules was called in question.

(2.) The principal ground of challenge in the writ petitions, against the legal validity of the aforementioned provision, was that in terms of Section 83 of the 1976 Act, the power to frame rules was vested in the Central Government and the said power was bifurcated into a general power to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act and a specific power to frame rules in respect of the subjects enumerated under sub- section (2) of Section 83. It was pointed out that clause (r) of Section 83(2) contained the specific power to make rules with regard to the manner of making declarations on packages in terms of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 39. Referring to the said clause in Section 83(2), it was contended that inasmuch as the declaration stipulated in rule 6(1A) was outside the ambit of the declaration envisaged in Section 83(2)(r), the provisions of rule 6(1A) of the Packaged Commodities Rules was ultra vires the rule making power conferred on the Central Government by Section 83 of the 1976 Act. It was also contended that any amendment made to Section 39 of the 1976 Act by the Parliament or to the Packaged Commodities Rules by the Central Government, after 24.7.1992, when the State Government had by an appropriate notification brought into force the Standards of Weights and Measures Enforcement Act in the State of Kerala, would have no application to commodities in packaged form dealt with exclusively in the State of Kerala. Such amendments according to the petitioner fell outside the operational ambit of Section 33 of the Enforcement Act. It was on the said premises that the writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of Rule 6(1A) of the Packaged Commodities Rules.

(3.) The learned single Judge, who considered the matter, referred to the provisions of Section 39 and Section 83 of the 1976 Act and also the provisions of rule 6(1A) of the Packaged Commodities Rules. It was noticed that the specific subjects enumerated under sub-section (2) of Section 83 for framing of rules by the Central Government were only illustrative in nature and not exhaustive. The learned Judge found that the power to make rules to give effect to the provisions of the Act was wide and general in nature, and what was provided in sub-section (2) of Section 83 was only a specific power to frame rules in respect of the subjects enumerated thereunder without effecting the generality of the power to frame rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Support was drawn from the provisions of Section 83 (2) (zd) which made it clear that the rule making power of the Government extended to any other matter which was required to be, or may be, prescribed. The learned Judge therefore found that the declaration mandated in rule 6(1A) of the Packaged Commodities Rules was not one that could be seen as beyond the rule making power of the Central Government under Section 83 and, at any rate, was a declaration that was intended to subserve the provisions of the 1976 Act. The writ petitions were therefore found devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.