The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petrol pump installed for internal consumption by the colliery was not legally liable to be verified and stamped by the weights and measures authorities, as it was not used in any transaction or industrial production.

1. Does the provision of S. 24 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Enforcement Act) extend to the petrol/H.S.D. pump, with underground tank and fittings, installed at a colliery under the consumer petrol/H.S.D. Hire and Supply Agreement with the Oil Corporation and whether the colliery is obliged under the law to have the petrol/H.S.D. pump installed on its premises duly verified and stamped even though the entire supply of petrol/H.S.D. is consumed by the colliery internally and no amount of petrol/ H.S.D. is sold by it to any third party ? These are the questions that arise for consideration in this case.

2. This writ petition is filed by the Manager of Kargali Colliery which is a unit of M/s Central Coal Fields Limited. The coal mining operation requires the use of different types of vehicles and machines all of which run on petrol or high speed diesel e.g. dumpers, bulldozers, heavy earth movers, pump etc. The colliery management, therefore, requires large supply of petrol and high speed diesel. In order to meet its requirement of petrol and H.S.D. the petitioner company entered into an agreement with the Indian Oil corporation. The agreement called the Consumer Petrol/ High Speed Diesel Pump Hire and Supply Agreement obliged the petitioner company to take all its supplies of petrol / H.S.D. from no one else but the Indian Oil Corporation. In turn the corporation agreed to have a petrol pump with underground tanks and fittings installed on the colliery premises for proper storage of petrol /H.S.D. supplied by the corporation in bulk. It will be required later in this judgment to examine the relevant clauses of the agreement. Suffice it to note here that the supply of the petrol/H.S.D. by the Corporation to the petrol pump installed under the agreement was meant entirely for the internal consumption by the colliery and the Colliery was further bound not to supply any petrol /H.S.D. from the petrol pump to any other person, firm or company.

3. To complete the brief facts of this case, the petitioner company received a notice, dated 20-10-1987 issued by the Inspector, Weights and Measures, Bermu (Tenughat). In the notice, it was pointed out that on the companys premises a petrol/HSD distribution pump was in operation without its being verified and stamped; that the action of the company in having such a pump in operation on its premises was in violation of Sec. 11 of the Bihar Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1959 and was punishable under S. 25 of that Act. The notice went on to ask the petitioner to have its petrol pump duly verified and stamped failing which legal action would be taken against it. The petitioner gave reply to the notice pointing out that there was no need for any verification or stamping of the petrol pump as it was used for selling petrol /HSD to any third party and all the supply from the petrol pump was for the collierys internal and captive consumption. In reply, respondent No. 2 served upon the petitioner another notice, dated 10-11-1987 simply reiterating that the use of any equipment of weights and measures on a commercial premises without its being verified and stamped was violative of S. 11 of the Bihar Act and that the colliery being a commercial organisation of the Government of India, it was legally essential for it to have the petrol pump verified and stamped. The notice went on to direct the petitioner company to have the petrol pump verified and stamped by the Inspector, Weights and Measures who had issued the notice. Against the notice-cum-order, dated 10-1-1987 issued by the Inspector, Weights and Measures, the company filed an appeal before the Controller, Weights and Measures (Enforcement) under S. 20 of the Bihar Act. The Controller refused to entertain the appeal observing that it was barred by limitation and the petitioner was accordingly intimated by letter No. 1001, dated 31-5-1988 issued from the office of C