2009 (1) TMI 521 - HC - Indian Laws

Violation of Sections 39, 63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 - package in which the goods was packed, did not contain the Maximum Retail Price (M.R.P.) inclusive of all taxes, in violation of Section 2(r) and Section 39 and 63 of the Act and PC Rules - writ of mandamus to declare Rules 6 and 33 of the Packaged Commodities Rules as illegal and ultra vires the powers under the Act - Held that - Rule 6 and Rule 33 as ultra vires the Constitution, nevertheless arguments are not advanced, writ petitions are without merit and are accordingly, rejected.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and applicability of Rules 6 and 33 of the Packaged Commodities Rules.
2. Applicability of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and the Packaged Commodities Rules to the petitioner's products.
3. Validity of criminal proceedings and notices issued under the Act and Rules.
4. Release of seized goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Applicability of Rules 6 and 33 of the Packaged Commodities Rules:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to declare Rules 6 and 33 of the Packaged Commodities Rules as illegal and ultra vires the Act. The court noted that the validity of Rule 6 had already been upheld by the Karnataka High Court in M/s. TT Private Limited v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1991 KAR 79. Furthermore, the court observed that Rule 33 had been omitted by notification dated 17-7-2006, rendering the argument moot. Therefore, the petitioner's challenge to these rules was rejected.

2. Applicability of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and the Packaged Commodities Rules to the Petitioner's Products:

The petitioner contended that their products were not regulated by the Act or Rules, arguing that the notification dated 26-9-1977 did not specify classes of goods, and thus, the Act did not cover their products. The court, however, rejected this argument, stating that Section 1(3)(d) of the Act does not necessitate separate notifications for different classes of goods. The court emphasized a purposive interpretation of the Act, considering the legislative intent to protect consumers and standardize rates. The court also held that the petitioner's products, being pre-packed commodities, fell within the scope of the Act and the Packaged Commodities Rules.

3. Validity of Criminal Proceedings and Notices Issued Under the Act and Rules:

The petitioner sought to quash the criminal proceedings and notices issued under the Act and Rules. The court upheld the actions of the authorities, noting that the petitioner's products were found in violation of Sections 39 and 63 of the Act and relevant rules. The court found that the petitioner's failure to print the Maximum Retail Price (M.R.P.) inclusive of all taxes on the package was a valid ground for the notices issued. The court also dismissed the argument that the rule of ejusdem generis applied, affirming that the Act and Rules were designed to protect consumers by ensuring transparent pricing.

4. Release of Seized Goods:

The petitioner requested a mandamus directing the release of the seized goods. The court, having found the seizure and subsequent notices to be valid and legal, did not grant this relief. The court emphasized that the petitioner's non-compliance with the Act and Rules justified the actions taken by the authorities.

Conclusion:

The court rejected the writ petitions, affirming the applicability of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and the Packaged Commodities Rules to the petitioner's products. The court upheld the validity of the criminal proceedings and notices issued, and did not grant the release of the seized goods. The petitioner's challenges to Rules 6 and 33 of the Packaged Commodities Rules were also dismissed.

← Previous Next →