Prematurity of challenging a notice under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 before the competent authority has considered the objections.

JUDGMENT :

B. Veerappa, J.

In these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought to declare that the notice dated 18.6.2006 issued to the petitioners under the provisions of Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 by the 2nd respondent as null and void.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that in view of the notices issued and objections filed, prayer Nos.1, 2 and 3 may be dismissed as not pressed for the time being reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise such declaration or relief at the appropriate and relevant point of time. The said submission is placed on record.

3. Accordingly, prayer Nos.1, 2 and 3 are disposed of as not pressed for the time being with liberty as prayed for.

4. It is the case of the petitioners-Associations that they are registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 comprising of persons as members, who are carrying on business of publication of books, distribution of books and book selling within the city of Bangalore. The books published by publishers are sold in the market through members of petitioners-Associations and other book sellers as per the price fixed by the publishers. The respondents issued notice to some of the members of the petitioners on 18.6.2012 under the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short, 'the Act') and the Legal Metrology (Packed Commodities) Rules, 2011 (for short, 'the Rules') for alleged violation and accordingly, the petitioners have sent suitable reply to all the notices contending that the Act and Rules are not applicable to them and respondents are unnecessarily, with a view to harass them, have called upon them either to compound the offence or to face prosecution under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. Hence, all these petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

6. Miss. Annu Bhardwaj for Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petitions contended that the provisions of Act is not applicable to the members of the petitioners-Associations, since the petitioners are not dealing with the 'books' which do not fall within the definition of 'commodities' or 'pre-packed commodities' and therefore, the action of the respondents is illegal and liable to be quashed. She would further contend that the provisions of the Act and Rules are applicable only to manufacturers, dealers dealing in goods/commodities and it is a well settled law that the books do not fall within the definition of 'commodities' or 'goods'. On plain reading of definition of 'books', it is evident that the same is not a 'commodity' and therefore, the provisions of the Act and the Rules are not applicable to the petitioners. Therefore, she contended that the impugned notices issued by the respondents to the petitioners are liable to be quashed. In support of her contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Others vs- Subhash Arjundas Kataria, (2011) 9 SCC 670 particularly para-9 of the said judgment. Therefore, she sought to allow the writ petitions.

7. Per contra, Sri N. Dinesh Rao, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Venkatsatyanarayan. A., learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 sought to justify the impugned action of the respondents and contended that the very writ petitions filed by the petitioners against the impugned notices issued by the authorities under the provisions of the Act and Rules are premature and are liable to be rejected. They would further contend that in response to the notices issued by the competent authorities, the petitioners have already filed statement of objections in all the cases and even before consideration of the said objectio