APHC010720882022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 42547/2022 Between: 1. HARSHA ELECTRONICS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR KADIYALA POORNACHANDER RAO, S/O SEETARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, H.NO.2-139, R/O VADDAMANU, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P-522236. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR DISTRICT.A.P. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY, D-NO.10- 152-1,CIYIL SUPPLIES BHAWAN,LST FLOOR, ASHOKNAGAR,BANDARU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP. 3. THECOMMISSIONER OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, D-NO.10-152-1,CIVIL SUPPLIES BHAWAN,1ST FLOOR, ASHOKNAGAR,BANDARU ROAD, 2 VS,J W.P.NO.42547 OF 2022 VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP. 4. THE JOINT CONTROLLER, LEGAL METROLOGY SIDDHARTHA NAGAR,GUNTUR. ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER, LEGAL METROLOGY D- NO.16-3-235,SIDDARTHANAGAR 1ST LINE GUNTUR,GUNTUR DISTRICT-522006. ANDHRAPRADESH. ...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 any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing condition of limiting the area of jurisdiction of the petitioner to Guntur district only in so far as the petitioner repair works are concerned, is arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of section 53 of the Legal Metrology Act and violative of articles, 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of india and consequently direct the respondents to delete such condition and allow the petitioner work throughout the state of the Andhra Pradesh wherever he gets customers and to grant costs of the proceedings and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the respondents to allow the petitioners as repairing weight, measures, repairers weighing and measuring instruments in existing repairing with in the territorial jurisdiction assigned to petitioner herein licensed districts in the state of Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 3 VS,J W.P.NO.42547 OF 2022 1. MANIKANTESWARA RAO KOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.NO.42547 OF 2022 ORDER The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing condition of limiting the area of jurisdiction of the petitioner to Guntur district only in so far as the petitioner repair works are concerned, is arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of section 53 of the Legal Metrology Act and violative of articles, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to delete such condition and allow the petitioner work throughout the state of the Andhra Pradesh wherever he gets customers and to grant costs of the proceedings ...” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner - M/s.Harsha Electronics, as stated by its proprietor is that, the petitioner obtained license from the 2nd respondent to repair Weights, Measures, Weighing Instruments or Measuring Instruments that are licensed to be repaired by the party. However, pursuant to the application of the petitioner for renewal of the license for all over the State of Andhra Pradesh, the 2nd respondent granted license for the period from 01.01.2022 to 31.12.2022 only to the extent of Krishna and Guntur District, where the workshop is located. The said license was suspended as per the proceedings dated 5 VS,J W.P.NO.42547 OF 2022 19.03.2019 of Regional Deputy Controller, Legal Metrology, Guntur. The petitioner challenged the same before the erstwhile Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.11623 of 2018 and the same was disposed of on 11.04.2018 with a direction to complete the enquiry within one month and restore the same. The petitioner challenged imposition of the condition limiting the operation of repair work of the petitioner only to the extent of Krishna and Guntur District in the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the material available on record. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that in similar circumstances in W.P.No.38817 of 2022 dated 11.03.2024, this Court dealt with the issue comprehensively and the learned counsel for the respondents supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. On perusal of the Section 53(1) of the Act, it empowers the State Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act. In order to better 6 VS,J W.P.NO.42547 OF 2022 understanding, Section 53(1) of the Act is extracted here under: “53. Power of State Government to make rules: (1) The State Government may, by notification, and after consultation with the Central Government, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act”. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:— (a) -- (b) -- (c) the form, manner, conditions, period, area of jurisdiction and fees for issuance of licence under sub-section (2) of section 23; 6. The whole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that for any notification to be issued under this Act for modification of existing Rules, it is vested with the 1st respondent only but in case on hand, the 2nd respondent issued impugned notification dated 25.11.2025 without there being any power conferred upon him and without jurisdiction, is not acceptable. 7. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the facts of the present case is 7 VS,J W.P.NO.42547 OF 2022 similar to that of the facts in W.P.No.38817 of 2022. For the reasons alike and following the ratio laid down in W.P.No.38817 of 2022, no relief as sought for, can be granted, on the premise that the petitioner, without there being any challenge as to the Gazette Notification dated 07.05.2015, has directly chosen to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in restricting the petitioner’s jurisdiction within the prescribed limits, and hence, the same is not maintainable. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 16.12.2025 LSP 8 VS,J W.P.NO.42547 OF 2022 255 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 42547/2022 16.12.2025 LSP