2015 (6) TMI 1090 - HC - Indian Laws

Conditions for grant of license - power of the State Government granting licenses - Held that - It is only the State Government which is empowered to prescribe conditions for grant of license by framing Rules and respondent No.1 is only empowered to issue license subject to such conditions as prescribed by the State Government. No provision under the Act or the Rules is brought to the notice of this Court under which this power of the State Government is delegated to respondent No.1. In the absence of such delegation, respondent No.1 has no power or jurisdiction to impose any condition other than the one, which is prescribed under Schedule III to the Rules. At best, respondent No.1 can only request the State Government to appropriately amend the Rules and the Schedule for deletion of the word Corporation from the name of the business establishments of the licensees. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned proceedings issued by respondent Nos.1 and 3 are held as wholly without jurisdiction and they are accordingly quashed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and jurisdiction of Circular Memo No.3255/L2/2011 and Circular Memo No.1857/B/11.
2. Authority of respondent No.1 to prescribe conditions for granting repairer licenses.
3. Compliance with the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
4. Interpretation of Section 23 and Section 53 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
5. Validity of conditions prescribed under Schedule III of the A.P. Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and jurisdiction of Circular Memo No.3255/L2/2011 and Circular Memo No.1857/B/11:
The petitioner challenged the legality and jurisdiction of Circular Memo No.3255/L2/2011, dated 26.08.2011, and Circular Memo No.1857/B/11, dated 12.09.2011, issued by respondent Nos.1 and 3 respectively. The petitioner sought a declaration that these circulars were illegal and without jurisdiction, arguing that they were directed to remove the word "Corporation" from the name of his business establishment without proper authority.

2. Authority of respondent No.1 to prescribe conditions for granting repairer licenses:
The petitioner contended that respondent No.1, being the licensing authority, was not empowered to prescribe any conditions other than those prescribed under Schedule III of the A.P. Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011. The petitioner argued that the conditions imposed by respondent No.1 were beyond their jurisdiction and not supported by the statutory provisions.

3. Compliance with the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and Legal Metrology Act, 2009:
The petitioner, a skilled worker authorized to repair weights and measures, had been operating under a repairer license since 1969, initially under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and subsequently under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The petitioner argued that the impugned circulars were inconsistent with the provisions of these Acts and the rules framed thereunder.

4. Interpretation of Section 23 and Section 53 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009:
The court examined the relevant statutory provisions, particularly Section 23 and Section 53 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Section 23(2) stipulates that the Controller shall issue licenses in such form and manner, on such conditions, for such period, and within such area of jurisdiction as prescribed. Section 53 empowers the State Government to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act, including the conditions for issuing licenses.

5. Validity of conditions prescribed under Schedule III of the A.P. Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011:
The court noted that Rule 11(3) of the Rules provides that every license issued to a manufacturer, repairer, or dealer shall be in the appropriate form set out in Schedule III, which enumerates specific conditions. The court emphasized that only the State Government is empowered to prescribe these conditions by framing rules, and respondent No.1 could not impose additional conditions beyond those prescribed in Schedule III.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that respondent No.1 had no power or jurisdiction to impose any condition other than those prescribed under Schedule III of the Rules. The impugned proceedings issued by respondent Nos.1 and 3 were held to be without jurisdiction and were accordingly quashed. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim orders were vacated.

← Previous Next →