M/s.TVS Electronics Limited (TVS Electronics, for brevity) and their General Manager filed instant writ petition questioning communications of respondents 4 and 5 (Inspectors of Legal Metrology, Tenali and Vijayawada respectively) informing that petitioners have committed offences under Section 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976 (for brevity, the Act) and Rule 23(1) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules 1977 (hereafter, Package Rules) punishable under Section 67 and Rule 39(1) of Package Rules. By impugned communication, petitioners were also informed that alleged offence is compoundable under Section 73 of the Act. If petitioners so desire, it was advised; they may pay necessary compounding fee within fifteen (15) days. Petitioners contend that the Act and Package Rules have no application to electronic printers (inkjet/laser/DOT Matrix printers etc) manufactured and marketed by them and that impugned communications are without authority or jurisdiction. Thus the case involves an interesting question as to whether electronic printers manufactured and marketed by TVS Electronics are "packaged commodities" within the meaning of Package Rules and for non- compliance with Rules and specifications, TVS Electronics has committed compoundable offence as contended by Department of Legal Metrology, Government of Andhra Pradesh.

The following brief fact of the matter is necessary to appreciate the question involved. TVS Electronics (a company registered under the Companies Act 1956) is engaged in the business of import manufacture, distribution and sale of computer peripherals like inkjet printers, DOT Matrix printers, printer cartridges etc., which are marketed in various States including Andhra Pradesh. Printers which are imported and/or assembled in their manufacturing unit in Tamil Nadu are distributed through their marketing outlets in various States, to retail dealers who sell them to needy customers through their sales staff. Electronic printers are fragile and are sensitive. Therefore they are protected by keeping in bubble fill covers, packing in well- insulated material to protect from damage. A consumer cannot readily use electronic printers. Computer compatible software drivers are to be installed before electronic printers are made useable. Just buying a printer from a retail dealer of TVS Electronics without proper installation of software is futile. They are ordinarily not sold 'off the shelf' and are marketed as a single unit and not in lots of more than one piece. It appears that on 16.8.2000 fifth respondent inspected M/s.Elite Electronic Industries Limited, Labbipet, Vijayawada (hereafter, Elite Electronics).

He found one retail package of MSP 245 9 wire 136 columns DOT Matrix printer manufactured by TVS Electronics without marking of sale price and therefore he issued a show cause notice dated 16.11.2000 calling upon first petitioner to submit explanation as to why action should not be taken for violation of Rules 4 and 6(1)(f) of Package Rules and Section 39 of the Act. Fifth respondent again inspected Elite Electronics on 04.12.2000 with two witnesses (panchas) and issued notice dated 09.1.2001 alleging that one retail package of Lexmark 211 color jet printer was being sold and that said package does not contain name and address of importer and retail sale price. He therefore issued another show cause notice dated 10.4.2001. First petitioner was asked to inform name, age, father's name and designation of person responsible for offence committed under Rule 33 read with Rule 23(1) of Package Rules.

At or about same time, fourth respondent, namely, Inspector of Legal Metrology, Tenali, inspected premises of M/s.Surya Systems, Tenali, on 23.5.2001 and found two packages of TVS Electronics 'Smart Mouse' without details on package with regard to sale price, manufacturer and year of packing. Therefore, fourth respondent issued notice informing that offence under Sect