The petitioner, which manufactures and markets the consumer goods, such as, toilet soaps, detergents, cosmetics etc., filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus to set aside notice No.109/PC/PDR/02-03, dated 02.07.2002 issued by respondent No.1 as the same is illegal and void.

The facts in brief are stated herein below.

The Inspector of Legal Metrology, Proddatur, Kadapa District, respondent No.1 herein, inspected the trading premises of M/s.Sri Saibaba Agencies, Mydukur, Kadapa District and seized a package containing detergent cakes, which was styled as “Smart Saver Pack” and “White and Bright Offer” of “Rin Supreme”. Based on the said inspection and seizure, respondent No.1 served the impugned proceeding in the form of a notice on the petitioner. The same is assailed in this writ petition on various grounds.

No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents.

Sri E.Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceeding whereby respondent No.1 concluded that the petitioner contravened the provisions of Section 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 63 of the Act and Rule 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (for short ‘the Rules’), is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the plain language of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner has not violated any of the statutory provisions and the impugned proceeding constitutes sheer abuse of process of law.

Opposing the said contentions, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies strenuously contended that the petitioner violated the standards of weights prescribed in Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule read with Rule 5 of the Rules. He further submitted that the impugned proceeding is only a notice whereby the petitioner was informed about the registration of a criminal case and that it is entitled to defend itself in the criminal case.

I have given serious thought to the respective submissions of the learned counsel.

A perusal of the impugned proceeding shows that the main thrust of the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner having stored for sale/sold the multi-piece package of Rin Supreme “White and Bright” “Smart Saver Pack”, contravened the provisions of Rule 5 read with Serial No.17(b) of the Third Schedule to the Rules. The petitioner pleaded that it has complied with the requirements of all the relevant provisions including Rule 5 read with Third Schedule to the Rules. In order to resolve this dispute, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules.

Section 39 of the Act prohibits a person from making, manufacturing, packing, selling or causing to be packed or sold etc., any commodity in packaged form to which Chapter IV applies unless such package bears thereon or on a label securely attached thereto a definite, plain and conspicuous declaration, made in the prescribed manner, of

(i) the identity of the commodity in the package;

(ii) the net quantity, in terms of the standard unit of weight or measure, of the commodity in the package;

(iii) where the commodity is packaged or sold by number, the accurate number of the commodity contained in the package;

(iv) the unit sale price of the commodity in the package; and

(v) the sale price of the package

and various other requirements enumerated therein.

To enforce the provisions of the Act, the Rules are framed. Rule 2(j) defined “multi-piece package” as a package containing two or more individually packaged or labelled pieces of the same commodities of identical quantity, intended for retail sale, either in individual pieces or the package as a whole.

Rule 5 of the Rules inter alia envisages that no person shall pre-pack, or cause or permit to be pre-packed, any commodity for sale, distribution, or delivery except in such standard qu