Raja.V vs. The Assistant Inspector Of Labour Cum Legal Metrology Officer

Facts

The petitioner, a retail stationery shop owner, was inspected by the Assistant Inspector of Labour cum Legal Metrology Officer. Following the inspection, a show cause notice was issued on 26.06.2023, alleging violation of Rule 6(1)(e) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, read with Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, for not declaring the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on an envelope packet containing 250 units. The petitioner contended that he purchased these envelopes from a wholesale dealer for retail sale and had no intention to sell them without following rules. He further alleged that the prosecution was initiated because he refused to pay an illegal demand of Rs. 5,000/- made by a subordinate officer. Subsequently, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed by an order dated 26.07.2023. The petitioner challenged both the show cause notice and the penalty order through a writ petition.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned show cause notice dated 26.06.2023 and the penalty order dated 26.07.2023. The Court noted the petitioner's specific allegation that the prosecution was initiated because he refused to oblige the inspecting officer, who had allegedly demanded a bribe. To verify this, the Court inquired with the Special Government Pleader about similar prosecutions in the past, to which the reply was negative. The Court interpreted Rule 6(1)(e) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, to mean that the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) should be indicated on the package, not necessarily on all loose covers. Considering the manner in which the prosecution was initiated under the said rule and the serious allegations leveled against the respondent's officer, the Court found it appropriate to allow the writ petition. The Court did not explicitly address the preliminary objections raised by the Revenue regarding maintainability and alternative remedy, implicitly finding them superseded by the merits of the petitioner's case and the alleged malafides.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable against a show cause notice, as argued by the Revenue? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable due to non-joinder of a necessary party, specifically the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement) cum Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology, as argued by the Revenue? 3. Whether the petitioner ought to have exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 50 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, before approaching this Court, as argued by the Revenue? 4. Whether the petitioner violated Rule 6(1)(e) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, read with Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, by failing to declare the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on the envelope covers? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the prosecution was initiated due to his refusal to oblige an officer who allegedly demanded a bribe. He contended that the requirement to declare MRP under Rule 6(1)(e) applies to the package and not to loose covers, and that he had no intention to sell them without proper declarations. He sought to quash the show cause notice and the penalty order. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue argued that the writ petition was not maintainable against a show cause notice and due to non-joinder of a necessary party. They also contended that the petitioner should have exhausted the appellate remedy under Section 50 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Furthermore, they argued that the petitioner violated Rule 6(1)(e) and Section 18 of the Act by not declaring the retail sale price on the envelope covers.