APHC010566852024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 29749/2024 Between: 1. WINGS LIFESTYLE, M.G. ROAD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PANKAJ NAHATA, S/O NAGRAJ NAHATA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O 304, UMRAO KAMAL RAJ APARTMENT, SARDAR PATEL MARG, JAIPUR- 302001. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE INSPECTOR, LEGAL METROLOGY, WEIGHTS AND MEASUREMENTS DEPARTMENT, CIRCLE-1, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Notice bearing No. PC/219/160/2024-25 /01 dated 24.11.2024 issued by the Respondent No.2 as manifestly arbitrary, per se illegal, capricious, whimsical, per se illegal, pre- determined, contrary and opposed to the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 besides being dehors jurisdiction and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14, 19 2 VS,J W.P.No.29749 of 2024 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set-aside the same and/or pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim order dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.No.29749 of 2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to hear the WP NO 29749 of 2024 under the caption "For Being Mentioned" to modift the interim order in WP NO 29749 of 2024 Dated 18.12.2024 as 3Months for Furnishing bank guarantees instead of 6months in favor of Respondent No.1 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.29749 of 2024 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Notice bearing No. PC/219/160/2024-25 /01 dated 24.11.2024 issued by the Respondent No.2 as manifestly arbitrary, per se illegal, capricious, whimsical, per se illegal, pre-determined, contrary and opposed to the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 besides being dehors jurisdiction and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set-aside the same and/or pass….” 2. The petitioner herein is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and is being represented by its Managing Director. The petitioner company is a manufacturer and dealer of clothes across India. As a part of its business, the premises admeasuring 800 square feet in D.No.40-1-53, Revenue ward No.10, block 3, Benz circle, Vijayawada, NTRD district was leased out and after obtaining necessary trade license and permissions, the petitioner has been continuing its business by running a retail cloth store. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 24.11.2024, the 2nd respondent visited the petitioner’s clothing store and found that the size of the commodities were not declared in metric units as required under Rule 6(1)(f) and 26(f)(c) read with Section 4, 18(1) and 36(1) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged 4 VS,J W.P.No.29749 of 2024 Commodities) Rules, 2011. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent seized three kurta sets bearing Style Code No.2405184251KS18587AS under Section 15(1)(b) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Further, the petitioner was issued the impugned notice dated 24.11.2024 wherein the petitioner was informed about the offence committed by it and that the same is compoundable; that if the petitioner intends to get the offence compounded instead of being tried in the Court of Law, it may do so by paying necessary compounding fee within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Aggrieved by the said notice, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri. A.S.K.S. Bhargav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the facts that led to filing of this writ petitioner and further submitted that the 2nd respondent, while conducting inspection over the petitioner’s shop, has not followed the procedure prescribed in Section 100 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Rule 21 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Hence requested to set-aside the impugned notice dated 24.11.2024. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader has supported the impugned notice in all aspects and contended that the petitioner 5 VS,J W.P.No.29749 of 2024 has failed to declare the size of the commodities in metric units as required under Rules 6(1)(f) and 26(f)(c) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 read with Section 4, 18(1) and 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Hence requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the entire material available on record. On 24.11.2024, the 2nd respondent has inspected the petitioner’s shop and found certain irregularities as mentioned supra. As such, the 2nd respondent seized three Kurta sets and issued the impugned notice to the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that the inspection over the petitioner’s shop is not in accordance with Section 100 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Rule 21 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. For better appreciation, Section 100 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Rule 21 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 are extracted hereunder: “Section 100 of Cr.P.C. – (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. Rule 21 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 – 21. Inspection of quantity and error in packages at the premises of the wholesale dealer or retail dealer 6 VS,J W.P.No.29749 of 2024 (1) Ordinarily, any test in relation to the net quantity contained in a package shall not be carried out at the premises of the retail dealer or the wholesale dealer, unless- (i) a complaint is received by the Director or the Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer to the effect that the package sold or delivered to the complainant does not contain the quantity declared on such package or on the label affixed thereto; (ii) the Director or the Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer has reason to suspect that any package has been tampered with or that there has been any pilferage or leakage of the commodity contained in the packages (iii) the Director or the Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer and any package, or any label affixed thereto, does not bear thereon all or any of the declarations which are required to be made under these rules. (2) Where any test is carried out in pursuance of the provisions of sub-rule (1), the Director, Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer shall verify whether the quantity contained in the package corresponds to the quantity declared on such packages or any label affixed thereto and where quantity contained in package is less than the declared quantity, whether the deficiency is more than the maximum permissible error in relation to that commodity. (3) Where the Director, Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer finds on a test carried out under this rule that the error in deficiency in any package kept or stored for sale, distribution or delivery at the premises of the retail or wholesale dealer is more than the maximum permissible error in relation to that commodity, he shall seize such package and take appropriate action against the retail dealer or the wholesale dealer, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Act: Provided that where the package bears the legend 'when packed', no punitive action shall be taken against the retail dealer or wholesale dealer if the Director, Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer is satisfied after necessary test that the deficiency in the net quantity contained in package is due to environmental conditions. 7 VS,J W.P.No.29749 of 2024 (4) Where as a result of any test made under this rule, it is found that the net quantity contained in the package conforms to the declared quantity or where there is a deficiency, such deficiency is not more than the maximum permissible error, the retail dealer shall be at liberty to sell or deliver or distribute such commodity at the price determined on the basis of the quantity found on such tests. (5)Where, as a result of any test made under this rule, it is found that any package, or any label affixed thereto, does not bear thereon all or any of the declarations required to be made under these rules, it shall be lawful for the Director, Controller or any Legal Metrology Officer to make such enquiries as to the source from which such package was received by the whole sale dealer or the retail dealer as the case may be, as he may think fit.” 8. It can be understood from Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. that before conducting a search, the concerned officer must call two or more independent and respectable local residents to be present at the time of the search in order to ensure that the process remains transparent and fair; if such people from the same locality are not available, witnesses from another nearby locality may be called, and the officer can issue a written order directing them to attend the search. Admittedly, no such local residents were present at the point of time when the 2nd respondent has conducted inspection over the petitioner’s store. The 2nd respondent has admittedly not followed the due procedure prescribed under Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the inspection and seizure were carried out without calling upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to be present and witness the search. 8 VS,J W.P.No.29749 of 2024 9. Now, a perusal of Rule 21 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, it can be understood that testing the net quantity of packaged goods should not be conducted at the premises of a wholesale or retail dealer, except in specific situations such as when a complaint is received regarding short quantity, when there is reasonable suspicion of tampering, pilferage or leakage, or when mandatory declarations are missing on the package or its label. Though it is an admitted fact that the petitioner failed to declare the size of the commodities in metric units as required under Rules 6(1)(f) and 26(f)(c) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 read with Section 4, 18(1) and 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, it can also be observed that the 2nd respondent has also failed to adhere to the procedure prescribed for inspection of quantity and error in packages at the premises of a wholesale or retail dealer such as the petitioner. Nowhere it is mentioned that the petitioner’s store was inspected upon receipt of any complaint nor was there any reasonable suspicion of tampering, pilferage or leakage. As the 2nd respondent failed to follow the due procedure prescribed under law as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned notice dated 24.11.2024 cannot be sustained under law and the same is liable to be set-aside. 9 VS,J W.P.No.29749 of 2024 10. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the notice dated 24.11.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby set-aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 23.12.2025 Gss