ORDER :

i) WP No.5707 of 2015 – is filed to ‘declare the impugned panchanama dated 14.03.2014 drawn at 11.30 AM/12.10 PM by the 6th respondent, alleging violation/contravention of Section 8 and 25 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short ‘Act of 2009) by the petitioner while seizing the ‘Roto Packer’ filling machine under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, as illegal and arbitrary’.

ii) WP No.5717 of 2015 – is filed to ‘declare the impugned panchanama dated 14.03.2014 drawn at 12.30 PM by the 6th respondent, alleging violation/contravention of Section 8 and 25 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with provisions of Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011 and A.P. Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011 by the petitioner while seizing and lifting away the four spouts Nos.3, 6, 9 and 12 of the ‘Roto Packer’ under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, as illegal and arbitrary’.

iii) WP No.5797 of 2015 – is filed to ‘declare the impugned panchanama dated 14.03.2014 drawn at 11.00 AM by the 6th respondent, alleging violation/contravention of Rule 19, 20 and 21 of the Legal Metrology (Packed Commodities) Rules, 2011 (for short ‘LM (PC) Rules of 2011’) read with Section 18 and 36(2) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 by the petitioner while seizing 32 cement bags under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, as illegal and arbitrary’.

1. As the issues involved in all the three writ petitions are common i.e., about the panchanamas conducted by the 6th respondent on 14.03.2014 at different times on the same day in the premises of the petitioner-Company, with the consent of both the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, all the three writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. During the course of inspection on 14.03.2014, the 6th respondent has drawn three independent panchanamas i.e., (i) Panchanama drawn at 11.00 a.m., (ii) Panchanama drawn at 11.30 a.m./12.10 p.m. and (iii) Panchanama drawn at 12.30 p.m., though the said inspection was confined to the ‘Roto Packer’, which is a single transaction.

3. As seen from the panchanama dated 14.03.2014 drawn at 11 a.m., which is impugned in WP No.5797 of 2015, the allegation is that two bags of cement out of 32 bags of cement were of ‘more than maximum permissible error’ as specified under Schedule-I of LM (PC) Rules of 2011 and that the petitioner has contravened Rules 19, 20 and 21 of the LM (PC) Rules of 2011 and Section 18 and 36(2) of the Act of 2009 and hence, 32 cement bags were seized under Section 15 of the Act of 2009.

4. The allegation in panchanama dated 14.03.2014 drawn at 11.30 AM/12.10 PM, which is impugned in WP No.5707 of 2015 is that there is variation in the weight of cement bag which is beyond the maximum permissible error and that roto packer machine which is used, is a nonstandard one and using the same is an offence under Sections 8 and 25 of the Act and hence, the roto packer was seized under Section 15 of the Act of 2009 and as it is not detachable, petitioner-company was directed not to use the same.

5. The allegation in third panchanama dated 14.03.2014 drawn at 12.30 PM which is impugned in WP No.5717 of 2015, is that as per verification certificate, the roto packer make is EEL India Limited, having 12 spouts and it is noticed that four spouts were made by ENEXCO Limited Technologies India, which is contrary to the verification certificate, and that the petitioner has changed spouts of EEL and fitted ENEXCO and hence, the said four spouts were seized under Section 15 of the Act and a case was registered against the petitioner.

6. Brief facts in all the three writ petitions are that -

i) Petitioner is a Company, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement; at the time of establishment of the cement factory, petitioner placed an order for supply of one Automatic Gravimetric Filling Machine, herein after referred to as ‘Roto Packer’ with 12 spouts but only eight spouts were supplied in the