Dr. T.N. Singh, J.

l. By the impugned judgment and decree passed on 17-4-1984, 5th Additional Judge to District Judge, Gwalior, has dismissed plaintiff-appellant's suit for declarations and consequential relief’s. Defendant-respondent No.2, Controller of Weights and Measures, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, is the authority against whom declarations were sought in respect of two orders passed by him on 3-1-1979 and 22-11-1982.

2. It is not disputed that since 1963 the plaintiff-appellant, Ali Bhai, an Indian citizen, has been carrying on trade and business, in the name and style of New Standard Scale Engineering Works, of repairs of weights and measures, under a licence obtained for that purpose and that the licence was renewed from year to year, until its cancellation by an order passed on 22-11-1982 by defendant respondent No.2. The licence, it is admitted, was sent to the said respondent for renewal and it was not returned to the plaintiff. It is also admitted that the reason for cancellation is recalcitrance of the plaintiff in the matter of compliance by him of order passed on 3-1-1979 by the said respondent as espects fixation of repair charges. Ex. P-2 is that document which contains a tariff of rates made effective from 1st January, 1979, It describes different items of repairs and fixes charges in respect thereof, mandating further that repair charges in excess thereof shall not be realised by any licenced repairer. The order seems to be a circular letter addressed by the said respondent to all Deputy Controllers, Assistant Controllers, and Inspectors of Weights and Measures of the State and copies thereof were endorsed to all licenced repairers, It is this letter which is the bone of contention between the parties; it is asserted by the plaintiff that the document is of zero value as it is constitutionally void.

3. Evidently, the ambit of the controversy is limited by admitted facts, there are unexplored dimensions of law and the Constitution in which, however lies the clue to its resolution. Reference is necessary, importantly, in some detail, to the relevant enactment and to the Constitution. First the Act, it is the Madhya Pradesh Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1959, for short, the Act or M.P. Act. According to its long title it is an Act, "to provide for the enforcement of standard weights and measures and for matters connected therewith". The Act has 5 chapters. Chapter III contains provisions relevant to the instant controversy. It bears the caption, "Verification and stamping of weights and measures." Section 13 of this Chapter contemplates that no person shall, in course of trade, manufacture, repair or sell of any commercial weight or measure or any weighing or measuring instrument unless he has obtained in the prescribed manner a licence in (that) behalf from the State Government". Various authorities and their powers are indicated in section 15, in which mention is made of Controller, Assistant Controllers and Inspectors of Weights and Measures but it only permits that they are required to exercise powers and discharge duties conferred or imposed on them under the Act.

4. Section 42 and section 45 more particularly, are of immediate relevance. In section 42, delegation is provided of powers exercisable under the Act by the State, except the power to frame rules, to a subordinate officer or authority. Under section 45 State Government is empowered to make rules' to carry out the purpose of the Act generally, and in particular to provide among others, as per clause (g) of sub-So (2), the form and manner in which and the conditions subject to which licences may be granted to persons for manufacture, repair or sale of commercial weights and measures and weighing and measuring instruments". Under clause (q) of the said sub-section the Rules may also prescribe the fees to be charged for grant of such a licence. Rules under the Act are framed called, "M.P. Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1959, for