BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 26.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

W.P(MD)No.22434 of 2023 and

WMP(MD) Nos. 18707 of 2023 & 20405 of 2024

Raja.V ... Petitioner

Vs

1.The Assistant Inspector of Labour cum

Legal Metrology Officer,

Karaikudi,

Sivagangai District.

2.Vasanthi .K,

Assistant Inspector of Labour Cum Legal

Metrology Officer,

Karaikudi,

Sivagangai District. ...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records of Impugned notice in Na.Ka.No. 182/2023 dated 26.06.2023 and consequent impugned order dated 26.07.2023 in O.Mu.No. B/1056/2023 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to

return the seized envelopes forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.Rm.Arun Swaminathan For R1 : Mr.C. Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader For R2 : No appearance

O R D E R

The petitioner is running a retail stationery shop in the name and style of ‘’Raja Paper Stores’’ at Karaikudi. His business was duly registered with the Commercial Tax Department with TIN No.33375482328 and also with GST Authority in 33A1PR2958PIZ9. According to the petitioner, the Assistant Inspector of Labour cum Legal Metrology Officer, Karaikudi, Sivagangai, namely, K.Vasanthi has inspected the petitioner’s store on 22.06.2023 at about 4.15 p.m and one of her subordinate has directly demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the petitioner. Since the petitioner has refused to pay the demanded amount, a show cause notice, under Section 18(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 was issued to this petitioner on 26.06.2023. Thereafter, a fine amount of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on the petitioner, by an order, dated

26.07.2023 and the same are under challenge in this writ petition.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the date of inspection, the respondent has seized an envelope packet containing 250 numbers from the petitioner’s shop that no declaration has been made on the package in respect of retail sale price. According to the petitioner, he has purchased the envelope from the whole sale dealer for the purpose of selling it on retail and he has never intended to sell the envelops without following the rules. The main contention of the petitioner is that for not having obliged the officer, the officer has initiated the prosecution as if this petitioner has violated Rule 6(1)(e) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 r/w Section 18 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009. This Rule mandates that the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) inclusive of taxes needs to be indicated in the package. The prosecution was laid and a notice was also issued to this petitioner as if this petitioner has failed to mention the Maximum Retail Price in each and every single cover. For not mentioning MRP in a loose cover, the respondent has initiated the prosecution. Therefore, the impugned show cause notice as well as the order imposing penalty have to be set aside.

3.Considering the manner, in which, the show cause notice was issued as against this petitioner and also considering the specific allegation as against the officer of the respondent Department, this Court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to file a report as to whether any such prosecution has been laid in the past.

4.The learned Special Government Pleader has filed a report stating that no such prosecution has been laid in the past for not mentioning the retail price in the loose covers. However, the learned Special Government Pleader has made his submissions as under:-

i. This writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of non-

joinder of necessary party. The impugned order, dated 26.07.2023 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement) cum Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology, however, he was not arrayed as necessary party.

ii. The impugn