2012 (12) TMI 1024 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 33 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
2. Condition in Form LM-3 requiring verification and stamping of goods.
3. Legality of the letter dated 31-5-2012 issued by the Government of India.

Summary:

1. Constitutionality of Section 33 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009:
The petitioners challenged Section 33 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, arguing that it is ultra vires Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. They contended that the section imposes an unreasonable and harsh restriction on their Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and affects their right to life and liberty under Article 21. However, the court held that Section 33, which prescribes penalties for the use of unverified weights or measures, is not unreasonable or arbitrary. The court stated that the legislative policy obligates a manufacturer to conform to the standards of weights and measures and secure such certification through verification before selling the product. The court further emphasized that the restriction imposed is a reasonable measure in the interest of the general public and does not violate Articles 14 or 21.

2. Condition in Form LM-3 requiring verification and stamping of goods:
The petitioners sought quashing of the condition in Form LM-3, which mandates that weights and measures manufactured and meant for use within the State must be verified and stamped before sale. The court observed that Section 24 of the Act mandates verification and stamping of weights and measures and that manufacturers are included within the ambit of this requirement. The court held that this regulatory measure is not an unreasonable restriction and is necessary to ensure that weights and measures conform to the standards specified under the Act.

3. Legality of the letter dated 31-5-2012 issued by the Government of India:
The petitioners challenged the letter dated 31-5-2012 issued by the Government of India, which laid down guidelines for the first verification of weights and measures. The court noted that the letter was issued to reduce the hardship of manufacturers and to adopt a uniform procedure throughout the country to avoid double stamping. The court found no merit in the petitioners' challenge to the letter and held that the hardship faced by manufacturers, if any, has been effectively redressed by the Government through this circular.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the contentions raised by the petitioners were unmerited. The court granted liberty to the petitioners to represent the Competent Authority if they are aggrieved by any provision of the Model Rules or instructions issued thereunder and to seek appropriate legal recourse if still dissatisfied.