LION DATES PVT LTD Vs. INSPECTOR LEGAL METROLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed questioning the seizure of the goods belonging to the petitioner under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures act, 1976 (the Act) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged commodities) Rules 1977 (the Rules) made thereunder.

(2.) THE case, in brief, of the petitioner is that it gets the date fruits plucked from the palm trees and gets the seed removed therefrom and repacks and sells seedless dates through distributors throughout India and that the inspector, Legal Metrology (Weights and Measures Department), Sathenapally (2nd respondent) had on 10. 01. 2003 seized its product from M/s. Balaji Sweets, sathenapally on the ground of violation of Section 39 of the Act and Ruels 4, 6 (1) (a) and 23 (1) of the Rules, on the ground that the seized packets do not bear the declaration of the name and address of the manufacturer as required by the Act and the Rules. After coming to know about the said seizure, its representative approached the 2nd respondent and informed him that the provisions of the Act and Rules do not apply to the product being marketed by it as they are not covered by the definition of 'packaged commodities' and as no notification as regards Dates, as required by clause (d) of Sub Section (3) of section -1 of the Act was issued but he did not agree with the said contention and hence the writ petition to quash the proceedings dated 10. 01. 2003 of the 2nd respondent.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents the in charge Regional Deputy Controller (Head Quarters), Legal Metrology, filed his counter affidavit inter alia contending that inasmuch as the petitioner admits that it is getting the Date fruits plucked from palm trees and is processing them, it is but a 'process of manufacturing', and so the name and address of the manufacturer has to be declared on the packages of seedless Dates fruits being marketed by it, as goods are packed and not re-packed as claimed by the petitioner. As notification vide gsr No. 620 (E), dated 26. 09. 1977, covering fruits was issued, the contention that no notification under Section 1 (3) (d) was issued covering dates is not correct. As all kinds of fruit packages come under the purview of the Rules, as specified in Schedule 4 and 5, packages being marketed by the petitioner under the head 'lion Seedless Dates' have to bear the prescribed declaration and as the products seized do not contain such declaration, petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought.