G.ROHINI, J.

1. The petitioner is a registered trader who carries on sale of imported rechargeable LED flash lights. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the notice issued by the respondent No.3 purportedly in exercise of the power conferred under Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, compounding the alleged offence punishable under Section 36(1) of the said Act on payment of compounding fee of Rs.25,000/-. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction quashing sub-rule 3 of Rules 32 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and is ultra – vires the Act;

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction thereby clarifying that Rules issued by Respondent No.1 will be applicable to inter-state trade and commerce and those issued by Respondent No.2 will be applicable to intra-state trade and commerce;

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction thereby direction Respondent No.3 to compound the offence of the petitioner by accepting compounding fee as laid down in Rule 25 of the Delhi Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011. ”

2. As could be seen from the material available on record, the petitioner’s premises was inspected by the team of the Legal Metrology, Government of NCT of Delhi on 22.11.2013 and it was found that one of the packets containing rechargeable LED flash lights did not bear the word Rs….../ Rs.…... In other words, the MRP shown on the package was not prefixed with symbol Rs…../Rs…. but it was merely shown „MRP 299.00?. Accordingly an inspection report/memo dated 22.11.2013 was issued by the respondent No.3/Asst. Controller of Legal Metrology. On 05.12.2013, the petitioner made a representation stating that the omission of the word Rs…../Rs….. was only on account of a minor printing error and there was no malafide intention as was apparent from the fact that the mistake was found on only one packet among many packets searched by the inspection team. However, the respondent No.3 chose to initiate proceedings for compounding under Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Controller/Assistant Controller on 09.01.2014 for compounding the alleged offence of contravention of provisions of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.

3. In response to the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.3 and sought for compounding on payment of Rs.2,500/- in terms of Rule 25 of the Delhi Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011. However, the respondent No.3 did not agree and insisted on payment of Rs.25,000/- towards compounding fees. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Before adverting to the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it is necessary for us to notice the relevant statutory provisions.

5. The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 has been enacted by the Parliament to establish and enforce standards of weights and measures, regulate trade and commerce in weights, measures and other goods which are sold or distributed by weight, measure or number and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 18(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short the Act) provides that no person shall manufacture, pack, sell, import, distribute, deliver, offer, expose or possess for sale any pre-packaged commodity unless such package is in such standard quantities or number and bears thereon such declaration and particulars in such manner as may be prescribed. Under Section 36(1) of the Act whoever manufactures, packs, imports, sells, distributes, delivers or otherwise transfers, offers, exposes or possesses for sale which does not conform to the declarations on the packet as provided in the Act shall be punished with fine which may extend to Rs.25,000/-, for the second of