The petitioner viz., V-Guard Industries Limited is a company having its registered office at Kochi of Kerala State. The petitioner is engaged in the business of purchase/manufacture and sale of consumer products like electronic voltage stabilisers, pump sets etc., There is no dispute that the petitioner deals with goods which are either manufactured by it or procured by purchase from S.S.I units; and all these goods are marked with registered trade mark V-GUARD over which the petitioner holds exclusive right of user. According to the petitioner, it has arrangements with 48 independent S.S.I units spread over in different states of Kerala, Tamilnadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra for manufacture and supply of voltage stabilisers as per the petitioner’s formulation and design and specifications resulting in proto type products; and proto type packaging is also designed, made and supplied by the petitioner to manufacturing units. In the similar fashion, the petitioner deals with pump sets as well as electronic voltage stabilisers manufactured by S.S.I units. Ultimately all the goods reach the market for sale with registered trade mark of V-Guard. There is no much dispute between the parties on this aspect of the case.

2) While so, the respondents 2 to 9 who are inspectors of Legal Metrology at Tenali of Guntur District, Mahabubabad of Warangal District, Kadapa of Kadapa District, Madhira of Khammam District, Gajuwaka of Visakhapatnam District, Sattenapalli of Guntur District, Nandyal of Kurnool District and Kandukur of Prakasam District booked 9 separate and independent cases against the petitioner, after making inspection of shops in the respective places, on the ground that electrical voltage stabilisers and pump set which were kept for sale in those shops do not contain name of manufacturer of the respective goods and that there was no disclosure of manufacturer’s name on the goods being sold by printing the same on the respective packages of those goods. The respondents 2 to 9 gave separate notices to the petitioner in 8 cases alleging contravention of Section 39/33 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (in short, the 1976 Act)/the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (in short, the 1985 Act) and Rule 6(1)(a) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (packaged commodities) Rules, 1977 (in short, the Rules). In one case, notice was given alleging contravention of Section 39 of the 1976 Act/Section 33 of the 1985 Act and Rules 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(f) of the Rules, in as much as two electronic voltage stabilisers did not contain declaration as to month and year of manufacture. The respondents 2 to 9 issued the said notices to the petitioner-Company as well as the retail shop owners in whose shops inspections were made. In the said notices, while setting out details of facts and provisions relating to the contraventions, the petitioner and the retailer were given option to pay compounding fees as the offence is compoundable, within specified time or otherwise prosecution will be launched in the Court of law. The petitioner without complying with the said notices by paying compounding fees, has chosen to approach the 1st respondent/Controller of Legal Metrology, Hyderabad by way of 9 representations respectively. The 1st respondent considered the said representations of the petitioner as appeals and after giving opportunity to the petitioner of being heard through counsel, passed the impugned orders dated 29.09.2001 respectively in all the 9 matters and disposed of the appeals holding that the appeals are devoid of any merits and did not make out any case to set aside the decisions taken by the respondents 2 to 9 in the respective notices. Questioning the said 9 orders of the 1st respondent, the petitioner approached this Court with this single writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari for quashing 9 orders dated 29.09.2001 passed by