M.R. Shah, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 8309 of 2011, by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the said petition preferred by the respondent herein and learned Single Judge has set aside the conditions forming part of the Schedule VI-A of the Gujarat Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011 and has directed original respondent department to consider the original petitioner's application for renewal, as if those conditions are not existed in the statute books, the original respondent - State has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nutshell are as under:

2.1. That the original petitioner is a registered association having its members, who are working as 'repairer' as defined under the provisions of The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2009' for short). That the members of the original petitioner are in the vocation of repairing weight and measures. That prior to the year 2009 i.e. before the Act came into force, there was an Act called 'the Standard of weight and measures Act, 1976' and 'the Standard of weight and measures (enforcement) Act, 1985'. On the enactment of the Act of 2009, the aforesaid two acts came to be repealed. That the members of the petitioner Association were issued appropriate licence for carrying out repairing work under the provisions of the Act prevailing prior to enactment of Act of 2009. That in the year 2009, the aforesaid act came to be enacted and came into force. That as per Section 53 of the Act of 2009, State Government, after consultation with the Central Government is empowered to make rules for the subject mentioned thereunder. That in exercise of powers under Section 53 of the Act of 2009, the State Government promulgated rules called 'the Gujarat Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules 2011' (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules 2011"). In the said Rules, the provisions of Rule 11 (11) and Schedule VI-A came to be made, under which, certain conditions are provided for grant of license for 'repair". Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied Schedule VI-A (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5)(d) and Table D, Rule 11(11) of the Rules, 2011, the original petitioner preferred aforesaid Special Civil Application before this Court. The relevant provisions which were challenged before the learned Single, reads as under:

"1. The workshop of the repairer shall not be in a residential premises.

2. The workshop should be having minimum 50 sqm areas and shall be preferably located on the ground floor or the basement. However, workshop will be permitted above ground floor if lift is provided in working condition in the building. The present licensee repairers shall comply with this provision within a time frame of 12 months from the date of notification of this Rules.

3. Minimum experience required:

The owner/partner in the repairer licence for repairing electronic balance class-III and class-IV (load cell based technology)may be diploma holder in Electronic/Electrical/Instrumentation Engineering in a government recognized institute. The skilled workers employed by him shall be holding Government recognized ITI electronic/electrical/instrumentation trade certificate.

The owner/partner in the repairer licence for repairing electronic balance class-I and class-II (magnet based technology) may be a diploma holder in Electronic/Electrical/Instrumentation Engineering in the government recognized institute. The skilled workers employed by him shall be holding Government recognized ITI electronic/electrical/instrumentation trade certificate. Also skilled workers having experience of more than 1 year as Service Engineer/Service Technician in the manufacturing company of such magnet based electronic balances will be preferable. However, in case the owner/partner does not have the prescribed qualificatio