9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned notification dated 26th August 1993. 2. Whether the amendment to Rule 23(7) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, is ultra vires the Parent Act. 3. Whether the amendment is arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory. 4. Whether the amendment serves the public interest and protects consumer rights. 5. Whether the amendment infringes upon the rights of manufacturers and retailers. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the impugned notification dated 26th August 1993: The petitioners challenged the validity of the notification amending Rule 23(7) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The primary contention was that the amendment was ultra vires the Parent Act and did not serve the public interest. The court examined the purpose behind the amendment, which was to prevent the practice of manufacturers and retailers altering prices by affixing multiple stickers on packages. The court found that the amendment was introduced to protect consumer interests and ensure transparency in pricing. Therefore, the notification was held valid. 2. Whether the amendment to Rule 23(7) is ultra vires the Parent Act: The petitioners argued that the amendment was beyond the scope of the Parent Act, which aimed to establish standards of weights and measures. The court referred to Section 83 of the Act, which empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. The court concluded that the amendment was within the powers conferred by the Act and was intended to achieve the Act's objectives. Thus, the amendment was not ultra vires the Parent Act. 3. Whether the amendment is arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory: The petitioners contended that the amendment was arbitrary and discriminatory as it restricted the use of stickers for altering prices. The court noted that the amendment was based on objective criteria and aimed to protect consumers from malpractices. The court also referred to the judgment in M/s Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, which emphasized that delegated legislation must be reasonable and in good faith. The court found that the amendment was reasonable and not discriminatory, as it applied uniformly to all manufacturers and retailers. 4. Whether the amendment serves the public interest and protects consumer rights: The respondents argued that the amendment was introduced to safeguard consumer interests by preventing the practice of altering prices through multiple stickers. The court referred to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order and the Expert Committee's report, which supported the amendment's objective. The court concluded that the amendment served the public interest by ensuring transparency in pricing and protecting consumers from unfair practices. 5. Whether the amendment infringes upon the rights of manufacturers and retailers: The petitioners claimed that the amendment infringed upon their rights to use labels and stickers as permitted under the Act. The court clarified that the amendment did not ban the use of labels or stickers but required that all information be printed on a single label or sticker. The court noted that the amendment aimed to prevent the misuse of stickers to alter prices and did not cause undue hardship to manufacturers or retailers. The court also highlighted that the amendment allowed for price reductions through stickers, provided the original MRP was not obliterated. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the impugned notification and the amendment to Rule 23(7) were valid, reasonable, and in the public interest. The amendment was found to be within the powers conferred by the Parent Act and aimed to protect consumer rights by ensuring transparency in pricing. The court emphasized that the amendment did not infringe upon the rights of manufacturers and retailers but sought to prevent malpractices detrimental to consumers.
|
