Compliance with Rule 6(1)(d) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, and Sections 18(1) and 31 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, is mandatory, and clear and specific declarations on packaged commodities are essential for consumer satisfaction and understanding.

Heard Mr. Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Noorani, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith.

3. By this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:

“(a) For a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of Appeal Case no. Secy/CLM/01/2013 on the file of the respondent no.2 and on perusal of the same that this Court be pleased to quash aside the impugned judgment and order dated 4/9/13 passed therein by the respondent no.2 and appeal of the petitioner be allowed.

(b) For an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vasco-da-Gama not to proceed with the trial of Criminal Case No. 78/OA/LMA/2013/A pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petitioner's appeal before the respondent no.2.”

4. The case of the petitioner, in short, is as follows:

The petitioner is a Government of India undertaking engaged in retail sale of the petroleum products and lubricants and allied businesses. On 09/11/2012, the officials attached to the Legal Metrology Department conducted a surprise visit at the terminal of the petitioner at Vasco-da-Gama and seized certain packages of lubricants sold on retail basis on the ground that the said packages did not bear the month and year of manufacture as per Rule 6(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 ('the Rules' for short). A show cause notice dated 12/11/2012 came to be issued to the petitioner by the Inspector of Legal Metrology. The seized items are lubricants prepackaged by the petitioner at different branding locations and after the branding process, these lubricants are sent to the can filling plants to be packaged. Since canning does not take place immediately, pre-packaged date i.e. the date on which the lubricants are canned, is mentioned on the package/can. Therefore, the said items would be covered under the Rule 6(1)(d) of the Rules requiring to mention the month and year in which they were pre-packed, which details are very much there on the packages of the seized items. Vide letters dated 12.11.2012, 16.11.2012 and 30.11.2012, the petitioner brought this fact to the notice of the respondent department. However, thereafter, the petitioner received a memorandum dated 01/01/2013 from respondent no.1 thereby rejecting the contentions of the petitioner and holding the petitioner liable for the offences under Section 18(1) and 31 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 ('the Act', for short) and Rule 6(1)(d) of the Rules. Aggrieved by the said order dated 01/01/2013, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 50(1)(e) of the Act before respondent no.2. On or about 20/03/2013, the petitioner received a letter dated 19/03/2013 from respondent no.1 regarding the appeal filed before respondent no.2 stating as follows:

"In this regard, it is to inform you that the undersigned has given idea to the Secretary, Legal Metrology about the matter. The undersigned has informed the Secretary that the said case has been filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco for trial against M/s. IOCL. Therefore, the Legal Metrology has directed the undersigned that as the matter is in trial stage and it is sub-judice, he cannot take up the matter and directed the undersigned to inform you accordingly. Therefore, the matter will be dealt with in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco."

The petitioner did not receive any communication from respondent no.2, though it was incumbent on respondent no. 2 to decide the appeal in accordance with law. On 12/04/2013, the petitioner received summons from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco under Section 61 of the Cr .P.C. to answer to a charge under Section 36 of the Act and Rule 32(2) of the Rules, on a complaint filed by the Inspec