Court upheld the legality of prosecution authorization, clarifying that no hearing was required prior to initiating legal action under relevant statutes.

JUDGMENT :

S.MANU, J.

Petitioner company approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P2 proceedings dated 16.8.2012 of the 1^st respondent. By the said proceedings the 1^st respondent authorised 2^nd respondent to file complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Koothuparambu against five alleged offenders. Among them Chairman and Managing Director, Chief Area Manager and Senior Plant Manager of the petitioner company were included.

2. Petitioner is a company engaged in refining and sale of petroleum products including bottling and sale of Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG). According to the petitioner, they don't indulge in sale of pressure regulators to the customers. Regulators are distributed through the dealers to the customers and they remain the property of the petitioner company. On termination of connection, customers are bound to return regulators to the company through the dealers.

3. Second respondent conducted inspection in the trade premises of Sri Muthappan Gas Services, M/s.Benzer Home Appliances, M/s. Brothers Novelty and M/s.Bright Metals situated at various places in Kannur on various dates. It was found that packages of LPG pressure regulators embossed with writing 'property of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.' were found kept for sale. The packages did not bear any of the statutory declarations under Rule 6(1) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The 2^nd respondent recovered documents showing sale of pressure regulators during the inspection. As the packages did not bear mandatory statutory declarations, packages were seized and cases were registered for breach of the provisions of Rule 23(1) of the above Rules as also Section 39(1) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1967 and Section 33 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. Chief Area Manager of the petitioner company submitted Ext.P1 letter on 18.7.2011 stating that the seizure of pressure regulators from Sri Muthappan Gas Services was improper as no sale was involved in the distribution of pressure regulators.

4. Show-cause notices dated 10.2.2010 were issued to the alleged offenders and the replies were received by the concerned authority. Thereafter, Ext.P2 order was issued by the 1^st respondent on 16.8.2012 authorising the 2^nd respondent to file complaint before the jurisdictional court.

5. Petitioner thenceforth submitted Ext.P3 appeal to the 1^st respondent on 10.9.2012. In the appeal memorandum it was stated that the appeal was filed under Section 81 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Section 69 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Rules framed thereunder. On 22.10.2012, the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P5 communication stating that the appeal cannot be considered and all contentions raised in the appeal can be raised in the criminal case. The 1^st respondent also stated that the Department waited for about 3 years for initiating legal proceedings and the petitioner never took any step during the said period.

6. Petitioner is assailing Ext.P2 order passed by the 1^st respondent and the proceedings initiated by the Department in this writ petition on the following grounds:-

i. No sale is involved in distribution of pressure regulators to customers and therefore the proceedings initiated alleging violation of the provisions of the respective Acts and Rules are not legally sustainable.

ii. No opportunity of hearing was provided to the officers of the petitioner who are chosen to be proceeded against.

iii. Ext.P2 was issued in terms of Section 63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, repealed by Legal Metrology Act, 2009 which came to force on 1.4.2011. Therefore, Ext.P2 is not legally sustainable.

iv. In an identical issue in the case of another company, 1^st respondent had taken a decision that