JUDGMENT

A.S.CHANDURKAR, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the communication dtd. 5/10/2016 issued by the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Akola to the petitioner-Company intimating it that as Sec. 3 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short, the Act of 2009) had overriding effect over the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, the Act of 1968), the stand taken by the Company that the provisions of the Act of 1968 would prevail over that Act of 2009 in the context of the labels on its insecticide packages was not acceptable. The Company was informed that the offence alleged was compoundable under the Act of 2009 and hence it was called upon to submit a consent letter in the prescribed format for getting the matter compounded.

3. The facts relevant for deciding the challenge raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner-Company is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of crop protection products as well as agro chemicals. The products manufactured and marketed by the Company are regulated by the provisions of the Act of 1968. The packaging and labelling of insecticides for sale, distribution and stocking was required to be done in the manner prescribed by the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (for short, the Rules of 1971). The Company contends that it is also required to follow the provisions of the Act of 2009 as well as the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (for short, the Rules of 2011). On 15/7/2016 the Inspector of Legal Metrology seized certain packaged products of the Company and issued a memorandum to it in which it was stated that there was a violation of the provisions of the Act of 2009 and the Rules of 2011 in the matter of packaging of its products by the Company. On 2/8/2016 the Company through its authorised signatory responded to the memorandum as issued and stated that there was no violation of the Rules of 2011 as alleged. Principally, it was the stand of the Company that the Act of 1968 being a special Act with regard to insecticides, its provisions would prevail over the Act of 2009 which was in the nature of general law. The Inspector of Legal Metrology considered the reply as given by the Company and on 5/10/2016 did not accept the stand as taken by the Company. He informed the Company that the offence in question was compoundable and if the Company desired to have the matter compounded, it should submit a consent letter in the prescribed format. Being aggrieved of the stand as taken by the Inspector of Legal Metrology, the Company has challenged the communication dtd. 5/10/2016 in this writ petition.

4. Shri Sunil Narula, learned counsel for the Company submitted that the Inspector of Legal Metrology proceeded on an incorrect legal premise to hold that the provisions of the Act of 2009 would override the provisions of the Act of 1968. He submitted that the Act of 1968 was in the nature of a special law framed specifically for regulating the manufacture, sale, distribution and use of insecticides. In the matter of sale, distribution and packaging of insecticides the Company was required to rigorously comply with the provisions of the Rules of 1971 and especially Chapter-V thereof. Under that Chapter packing and labelling of insecticides was to be done in the manner prescribed therein. The Company was complying with the requirements of Chapter V of the Rules, 1971 and while doing so, it could not be required to comply with the provisions of the Rules of 2011 to the extent they were inconsistent with the Rules of 1971. Inviting attention to Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 2011, it was submitted that the provisions of Rule 7(1) to 7(3) thereof were not applicable to a package if the information to be specified on such package under Rule 7 was also required to be given by or under any other law for the