L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a manufacturer of wrist watches. It has got its distributors all over the country and one of its distribution point is at Mahabubnagar. On 28-12-1982 the Senior Inspector of Legal Metrology, Weights and Measurements Department, Mahabubnagar, A. P. the first respondent herein, inspected the shop of the petitioner and on finding that various specifications as to the date of manufacture, the price etc. , have not been printed on the container, he has seized certain watches and issued show cause notice alleging contravention of Section 39 of the Standards of weights and Measurements Act, 1976, herein after referred to as the Act and the standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 hereinafter to as the Rules. In the show cause notice dated 2-1-1993, it is also indicated that the contravention alleged against the petitioner is compoundable under S. 73 of the Act.

( 2 ) ON receipt of the notice the petitioner has submitted its reply dated 8-1-1993 and one of its contention was that the provisions of the Act and Rules do not apply to the watches for the reason that they do not come within the definition of packaged commodities and subsequently no notification as regards watches was issued as required under clause (d) of sub-section (3) of Sec. 1 of the Act. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was not accepted and ultimately the first respondent passed an order dated 4-2-1993, to the effect that if the compounding charges are not paid, the proceedings will be initiated in appropriate Court under the provisions of the Act and Rules. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the goods, i. e. , watches and containers manufactured by the petitioner do not attract the provisions of the Act and rules and for issuance of writ of certiorari or prohibition and for consequential reliefs.

( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that unless and until the notification under clause (d) of sub-section (3) of Sec. 1 of the Act is issued in respect of watches, it was not competent for the first respondent to initiate any proceedings or prosecute the petitioner for the alleged violation.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit, the respondents pleaded that the petitioner was under an obligation to furnish the particulars of the date of manufacture, price of the commodities etc. as required under Rule 10 of the Rules and inasmuch as admittedly the said particulars were not contained on the packages which were seized from the petitioner, it cannot be said that there was any irregularity or illegality in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Reference was made to the provisions of the Act and rules. However, the fact that notification under S. l (3) (d) was not issued is not disputed. In the other writ petitions, the facts are similar barring a few variations as to dates of inspection and quantity seized.

( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

( 6 ) THE controversy in this batch of writ petitions is in a very narrow compass. The parliament has enacted the Act 60 of 1976 to establish standards of weights and measures, to regulate inter-State trade or commerce in weights, measures and other goods which are sold or distributed by weight, measure or number and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act covers the very wide range of aspects of trade. By their very nature the method of manufacturing, manner of sale, the parameters of pricing etc. , substantially vary from commodity to commodity. With the assent given by the President or with the publication of single notification it was just impossible to bring all goods or articles which are manufactured and sold; within the purview of the Act.

( 7 ) HAVING regard to versatile nature of the matter, be as it regards the place of manufacture, method of manufacture, variety of goods etc. . at the threshold of the act itself, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document