The question involved in this Writ Petition is whether an advertisement made by the first petitioner, M/s.Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., in India Today (Malayalam) in respect of their vehicle, Scorpio, in which the engine of the vehicle is described as having 109 BHP would constitute an offence under Section 11 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, Sections 14 and 79 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and under item No.11 of Part II of the Second Schedule to Rule 5 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (National Standards) Rules, 1988.

2. The first petitioner Company, established in 1945, is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of motor vehicles under a general brand name "Mahindra". The petitioners released an advertisement in which the engine was described as having 109 BHP, BHP being British Horse Power. The second respondent, the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Kanhangad, issued Ext.P1 show cause notice to the second petitioner, the Chief Operating Officer (Automotive Sector) of the first petitioner Company, stating that the description of power of the engine of the vehicle in question in the old imperial system unit of BHP (British Horse Power) is violative of the provisions of law mentioned above. On receipt of Ext.P1 show cause notice, the second petitioner issued Ext.P2 reply to the second respondent stating that the advertisement in question does not violate the provisions of law mentioned in Ext.P1 show cause notice. It was contended that the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 is an Act to establish standards of weights and measures, to regulate inter-State trade or commerce in weights, measures and other goods which are sold or distributed by weight, measure or number, and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, and that the vehicle is not being sold or distributed by weight, measure or number. Therefore, it was contended that the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 does not apply to the vehicles manufactured and distributed by the first petitioner company. It was further contended that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles, is a special legislation so far as motor vehicles are concerned and that Act would prevail upon a general law like Standards of Weights and Measures Act. It was also pointed out that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a statute which came into force later in point of time and if there is any contradiction between the two Acts, the later Act shall prevail. The various Rules under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the forms prescribed thereunder were also mentioned in Ext.P2 reply to fortify the contention that there is no violation of law in the matter of the advertisement. It was further contended that Section 4 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act mandates that every unit of weight or measure shall be based on the units of the metric system and the expression of unit of power in horse power comes within the definition of metric system. It was contended that if the equivalent of BHP, viz., watts is mentioned in the advertisements, it would cause confusion among the public. The practice in the motor vehicle industry is that the power of an engine of a vehicle is mentioned only in BHP. It was requested in Ext.P2 to accept the explanation and to drop all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1.

3. The second respondent thereafter issued Ext.P3 notice stating that Ext.P2 reply is not acceptable to the Department. It is stated in Ext.P3 that vehicles are being sold in terms of number along with other relevant specifications like their weight, power, engine capacity, wheel base, etc. and hence the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 is applicable to the case on hand. The second respondent further pointed out in Ext.P3 that Section 3 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 provides that the provisions o