2008 Supreme(Kar) 236

2008 (3) KLO 2221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
A.S. Bopanna, J.
Writ Petition No. 9051/2005 (OM-RES)
M/s Khaitan Electricals Ltd - Petitioner
Vs.
The Union of India and Another - Respondents
Decided on 2-4-2008

Headnote:(A) Standard Weights and Measures (Package and Commodities) Act, 1976 - Preamble - Object of Act - Reiterated.

       (B) Standard Weights and Measures (Package and Commodities) Act, 1976 - Section 1 - Application - Entire section brought into force by notification - No need of issuing separate notification respecting each clause.

       Held: Section 1 which has been notified and brought into force is relevant in the context of the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. When the entire Section-1 has been brought into force, the contention that there should be a separate notification in respect of each of the clauses mentioned in sub-section (3) to Section-1 cannot be countenanced. In any event, the argument that there should be a separate notification indicating the classes of goods to which the Act is applicable though may appear attractive, cannot be accepted, for the reason that it is not only impracticable, but the very purpose of the Act cannot be achieved, if such a narrow interpretation is made. This is so because, if that was the intention, one cannot expect the issue of fresh notification as and when new classes of products are manufactured and sold in the market more so in the present day of continued innovations. Once the provision of the Act is clear that the pre-packed goods should display certain information on the packed material, the said information is required to be furnished on such package. (Para 7)

       (C) Standard Weights and Measures (Package and Commodities) Act, 1976 - Sections 39 and 83 - Date and month of manufacture - Act not specifically requiring mentioning of - Can rules provide for.

       Held: The statement of objects and reasons for introducing theAct in question would indicate that the different facets of the bill were stated to and clause 5 in the bill stated with regard to the details to be indicated, so that the same would provide for consumer protection in respect of packaged commodities while providing for the proper identification on the package. Among others it is also stated in the objects that indication of date of manufacture and date of expiry would also be marked for appropriate products. If such object of the law makers is kept in view, even in respect of the products manufactured by the petitioners herein since the fan is mechanically propelled and since metal is used, the time period after manufacture of the product is also an important aspect for the consumer to decide whether he should purchase the same or not and as such even with regard to such product, the month and year is an important aspect to be displayed. Therefore, even though Section 39 of the Act does not specifically provide with regard to the month and year but since it is wide enough, the said rule could be framed exercising the power available under sub clause (zd) to sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Act. Even otherwise, sub-section (2) itself would indicate that the power specified in sub-clauses (a) to (zd) to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act is without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power.

       (Para 8)

       (D) Standard Weights and Measures (Package and Commodities) Rules, 1977 - Rule 6(1)(d) - Date and month of manufacture - Section 39 of the Act not specifically providing for mentioning of - Expression ‘identity of the product’ is wide enough to include all details necessary for identification of product.

       Held: No doubt, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the specifics of the rule making power relating to the matters provided therein are stated at sub-clause (a) to (zc) and the said sub-clauses does not indicate with regard to the month and year. However, sub-clause (zd) indicates that the rule making power extends to any other matter which requires to be or may be prescribed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however contends that the same does not provide the powers since, none of the sub-sections to Section 39 of the Act would specify with regard to the indication of month and year of manufacture. Though Section 39 of the Act does not indicate specifically with regard to the same, the identity of the product is required to be indicated. In my view, the phrase identity of the product’ is wide enough to include all the details with regard to the product to identify the same including the details to identify when exactly the product came into being.

       (Para 8)

       Result: Writ Petition allowed.