1. Whether Ext.P3 advertisement given by the petitioner showing that the product is available "Now Rs.15 onwards" (without mentioning the quantity/number) contravenes Section 18(2) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is the point that arises for consideration in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner/Mars International India Private Limited (wrongly described as Mars India Pvt. Ltd in the 'Synopsis' and the 'Affidavit' in support of the writ petition), is a Company registered under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at New Delhi. The petitioner is stated as associated with Mars group of companies and imports various brands of chocolates and other food products including the product-'SNICKERS'. It is pointed out that, the petitioner commenced its operation in India in 1994 and is doing the business in conformity with all the statutory requirements.

3. In connection with promotion of business of the petitioner, advertisements/Boards like Ext.P3 came to be issued/installed, referring to the name of the product and projecting the profile as "Now Rs.15 onwards". On coming across such advertisement, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P1 notice dated 27.02.2013 to the petitioner, simultaneously serving similar notice (Ext.P2) to the Distributor of the petitioner by name M/s Jeny Agencies, alleging violation of Section 18(2) of the Legal Metrology Act. The third respondent is of the view that, since there is no declaration as to the net quantity or number of the commodity contained in the package, the advertisement saying "Snickers Now Rs. 15 onwards" constitutes infringement of Section 18(2) of the Act and is punishable under Section 36 (1) of the Act. It is in the said circumstance, that the petitioner and the Distributor have been required to show cause in writing, why they should not be prosecuted for the offence.

4. On receipt of Ext.P1/P2 notices, the petitioner filed Ext. P4 statement of objections before the third respondent, pointing out that no contravention of any of the provisions of the Statute was ever made by them, in any manner. It was sought to be explained with reference to Section 18(2) of the Act that, it applies only to those advertisements which declare the price of any specific package of a pre-packaged commodity since it uses the words "contained in the package". In the case of the petitioner, Ext.P3 advertisement was only of a general nature, without reference to any specific package and hence the request to withdraw the impugned notice.

5. After considering the reply preferred by the petitioner, the third respondent issued Ext.P5 communication dated 13.04.2013, observing that the advertisement was in clear violation of Section 18 (2) of the Act, punishable under Section 36(1) of the Act; and accordingly directed the petitioner to submit the packing registration for the said packages as well as the details of Partners/Directors/persons responsible for conduct of the business. This made the petitioner to rush to this Court for immediate interference.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the idea and understanding of the third respondent as to the alleged infringement of Section 18(2) of the Act is thoroughly wrong and misconceived. The specific words as "contained in the package" " is with a definite purpose and meaning and it has to be read and understood with reference to the retail price to be shown on the package. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, on reading the provisions together, Ext.P3 advertisement is only of a general nature, without reference to any particular package or its retail price and as such, there is no violation of Section 18(2).

7. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, the expression used under the statute is quite categoric, which does not give any room for ambiguity. If an advertisement is to be made with reference to t