High Court · 2025

W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in STC No.5604 of 2019, for the offence under Sections 44(1) (2) (3), 33, 27, 32 & 45 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, by his Judgment, dated 10.04.2023 found the petitioner guilty and convicted, sentenced him and imposed six months rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.35,000/-. As against the conviction in STC No.5604 of 2019, the petitioner has preferred a criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.37 of 2023 before the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai and the same has been entertained by the first Appellate Court. The sentence imposed by the trial Court alone was suspended in Crl.MP No.2726 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.37 of 2023, vide order dated 25.04.2023.2. Pursuant to the conviction imposed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in STC No.5604 of 2019, dated 10.04.2023, a show cause notice was issued to this petitioner on 22.05.2023, calling upon his explanation for cancelling the licence. The petitioner has offered his explanation to the show 4/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024cause notice on 10.07.2023 and similar explanations were offered by one Meena and Meenambikai, the partners of M/s. Mathi & Co on 30.06.2023. This petitioner and other partners have taken a uniform stand that the godown, from which, the illegal non stamped weights and counterfeit seals were recovered is not belonging to them and it belongs to M/s. Madurai Cotton Merchants Oil Cake Association and they have leased out the premises to some other persons. This business is the only source of their income. The respondent has rejected their explanation, which resulted in cancellation of the licence, issued to this petitioner in Licence No.2665/1990 under the Legal Metrology Act, by the impugned order dated 15.03.2024. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has attacked the impugned order on the ground that there is violation of principles of natural justice and that the impugned order is passed without any application of mind. He has taken a specific plea that the petitioner has nothing to do with the place of recovery, namely, 5/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024Door No.6, Mamundi Vathiyar Lane, Madurai. According to the petitioner, this building belongs to M/s. Madurai Cotton Merchants Oil Cake Association and they have leased out the building to some other persons. There is no existing lease agreement in favour of the petitioner Company, however, based on the recovery made from this building, a show cause notice was issued and subsequently, the petitioner's licence is also cancelled, even though the petitioner has taken this specific plea on the building and recovery. According to the learned counsel, the godown, from which, the illegal weights, non-standardized weights and counterfeit seals have been recovered is in the name of one Palpandi, who is neither an accused in STC No.5604 of 2019 or a party to the proceedings initiated under the Metrology Act. No such materials have been recovered from the petitioner's Shop functioning at D.No.87 to 137, East Masi Street, Madurai West Taluk. 3.1. On the contention of violation of principles of natural justice, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 6/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Aureliano Fernandes vs. State of Goa and others reported in [2024 (1) SCC 632] and submits that mere issuance of show cause notice is not sufficient and an opportunity of being heard must be provided and this hearing should be a genuine one and it should not be an empty formality. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the respondent has not been provided with any opportunity of personal hearing to present his case and therefore, it has to be construed that the proceedings have been conducted without following the principles of natural justice.4. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that in a surprise inspection conducted on 14.03.2019, the authorities have seized 340 number of illegal stamped weights, 1415 numbers of non-stamped weights, 92 numbers of non-standardized weights and 64 numbers of Counterfeit seals, vide receipts Nos.1019664, 1019665 and 1019666. The petitioner has admitted this seizure and signed in 7/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024those receipts. Though the petitioner claims that he is nothing to do with the building in Door No.6, Mamundi Vathiyar Lane, Madurai, this building was in the custody of this petitioner and the petitioner has admitted in his explanation dated 10.05.2019 that the building was being used as a temporary godown by M/s Mathi & Co. and has not denied that the seized articles were being stored in this godown. This explanation was marked as Ex. P17 before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in STC No.5604 of 2019. Based on the recovery, a criminal prosecution has been laid as against this petitioner in STC No.5604 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 44(1) (2) (3), 33, 27, 32 & 45 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009, wherein, the respondent has established the case by marking 26 documents including Seizure Mahazar and Seizure Receipts as Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. He further submits that 13 witnesses have been examined on the side of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner. After a full-fledged trial, the trial Court has imposed six months rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.35,000/-. Though the petitioner has preferred an appeal as against the 8/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024conviction, the first Appellate Court has suspended the sentence alone and the same would not absolve the petitioner from further proceedings contemplated under the Legal Metrology Act and Rules thereunder. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice on 22.05.2023, calling upon him to offer his explanation as to why action should not be taken under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 10.07.2023 and apart from this petitioner, two others, claiming to be the partners of M/s.Mathi & Co have also submitted their explanations as that of the petitioner. They have mainly relied on the interim suspension order granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.37 of 2023 and replied that the building, from where, the recovery was made does not belong to him. The petitioner was in possession of the non-stamped, non-standardized weights and counterfeit seals.5. It is further submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the criminal prosecution does not prevent 9/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024the respondent/the licensing authority from initiating the proceedings under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011. This Rule does not prescribe a roving enquiry before cancelling the licence and what is required is that an opportunity must be provided. Here in the present case on hand, an opportunity was provided to the petitioner, by issuing a show cause notice and the petitioner has also offered his explanation. Not satisfied with the petitioner's explanation, the respondent has proceeded as per the Rules and cancelled the licence. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition.6. This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record. 7. The petitioner is a licensed seller of weights and measures and he was issued with a License No.2665, under Section 2(d) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. This licence was cancelled 10/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024by the respondent, pursuant to the criminal prosecution as against this petitioner that he has been convicted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in STC No.5604 of 2019, dated 10.04.2023. A surprise inspection was conducted by the Enforcement Officers in a building, situated at Door No.6, Mamundi Vathiyar Lane, Madurai on 14.03.2019 and they have recovered the following materials from the above godown:1. Illegal stamped weights 340 Nos.2. Non stamped weights1415 Nos.3. Non standardized weights 92 Nos.4. Counterfeit seals 64 Nos. The above materials have been seized under receipt Nos.1019664, 1019665 and 1019666, in the presence of the petitioner. He has admitted the same and also signed in those receipts. In fact, the surprise inspection was conducted along with the Child Line Member, in order to find out as to whether any child labourers have been inducted. On hearing the hammer sound inside the above closed building, the officials have suspected and knocked the door, however, there was no response. They enquired with the neighbours 11/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024and came to know that a company, namely, M/s. Mathi & Co is running by this petitioner in the said premises, and he was brought to the spot and only thereafter the door was opened. The petitioner claims that the building belongs to M/s. Madurai Cotton Merchants Oil Cake Association. The Secretary of M/s. Madurai Cotton Merchants Oil Cake Association was examined as PW 12 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and he turned hostile by deposing that he has leased out the building to one Palpandi 5 years ago. However, the other responsible officers have deposed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court that this building was in use by this petitioner alone and on the intervention of the petitioner only, it was opened at the time of inspection.8. In fact, a criminal complaint was lodged before the Vilakkuthoon Police Station on 24.04.2019 by one Anthonysamy Pushparaj and CSR No. 124 of 2019 was issued for the same on 25.04.2019. The Inspector of Police vide letter dated 30.04.2019 has asked for clarification regarding whether any independent witnesses 12/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024were present, when the seizure was made and whether the respondent Department was having the details regarding the sale of the weights and seals to other persons. The respondent department has replied on 02.06.2019 that no independent witnesses were present and no details were available with the Department regarding the sale of the weights and measures to other persons. It is not known as to why the police has not registered FIR for the above seizure and the Department has also not prosecuted the case further. Thereafter, a private compliant has been filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai in STC No.5604 of 2019, for the following offences under the Legal Metrology Act 2009:(1)Sections 44(1), (2) and (3) dealing with counterfeiting of seals(2)Section 33 dealing with use of unverified weight or measure(3)Section 27 dealing with manufacturing or sale of non standard weight or measure13/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024(4) Section 32 dealing with failure to get model of weight or measure approved (5)Section 45 dealing with manufacturing of weights and measures without licence.9. These offences will definitely have an adverse impact upon the Society at large and that is the reason why penal provisions have been introduced under the Legal Metrology Act 2009 for the fabrication of weights, measures and seals. It is to be noted that a large number of illegal weights and seals have been recovered in a single day, when a surprise inspection was made by the officials. It is not known, how many number of such illegal weights and scales have been manufactured and distributed in the market. It is the duty of the police concerned to ascertain those details by prosecuting the complaint. Instead they have simply asked for these details from the respondent Department and it has also responded that no such details are available with the Department. The Secretary of the M/s. Madurai Cotton Merchants Oil Cake Association ought to have been interrogated by the police in order to ascertain the lessee and the 14/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024period of lease of the building. However, without doing any of the above, the case has been handled by the police as well by the respondent Department in a casual manner.10. The seizure was made on 14.03.2019 under receipts and the petitioner, who is having licence to sell the weights and measures under the Legal Metrology Act, has admitted the same and signed it. The Officer, Antonysamy Pushparaj has also issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 22.04.2019, vide letter No.129 of 2019. The petitioner appears to have received this notice on 25.04.2019 and has sent letter on 02.05.2019, asking for one week time to submit his explanation and he has also submitted his explanation on 10.05.2019. The petitioner has also sent another explanation on 24.06.2019. In this backdrop, the petitioner's licence No.2665 of 1990 was suspended by a proceedings in Na.Ka.No.12512 of 2019, dated 16.07.2019 and the same was challenged by way of a writ petition before this Court in WP(MD) No.18698 of 2019, on the ground that the Controller has suspended the licence 15/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024without any notice to the petitioner to put forth his case. On this submission, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of, on the date of admission itself i.e on 13.09.2019 that there was no notice provided to the petitioner and that the order of cancellation of licence was passed without any merits, and therefore, it was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the first respondent with a direction to consider the matter afresh and to pass orders after providing an opportunity of hearing. The order of suspension dated 16.07.2019, which was the subject matter in the above writ petition itself indicates that a show cause notice was issued to this petitioner on 14.06.2019, for which, this petitioner has submitted his reply. The licence was suspended as per Rule 12(1) of the Tamil Nadu Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011, which reads as under:“(1) The Controller or such other officer authorised by him in this behalf may, if he has any reasonable cause to believe that the holder of any licence issued or renewed under the Act has made any statement in, or in relation to, any application for the issue or renewal of the licence, which is incorrect or false in any material particular or has contravened any provisions of the Act or 16/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024any rule or order made thereunder, suspend such licence, pending the completion of any inquiry against the holder of such licence: Provided that no such licence shall be suspended unless the holder thereof has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action: Provided further that where the inquiry referred to in this sub-rule is not completed within a period of three months from the date of suspension of a licence, such suspension shall, on the expiry of the period aforesaid, stand vacated.”11. No doubt, this Rule contemplates a notice before an order of suspension. Even as per the order of suspension, a show cause notice was issued on 14.06.2019 and a reply was provided by this petitioner. However, without pointing out the same, the learned Special Government Pleader, who appeared on behalf of the respondents in the above writ petition conceded as if no notice was issued and therefore the order of suspension was set aside by this Court, on the date of admission itself. This Court, while setting aside the order of suspension, has permitted the Controller of Legal 17/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024Metrology, (Weights and Measures), Government of Tamil Nadu to consider the matter afresh and to pass a fresh order by providing an opportunity to the petitioner. In fact, this Court has passed the order in W.P.(MD) No.18698 of 2019 on 13.09.2019, only under the impression that there was no notice to the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 12(1), though it is otherwise. However, the first respondent for the reasons best known to him, did not proceed further and has initiated action only on 22.05.2023, pursuant to the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in STC No.5604 of 2019. The petitioner has responded to the show cause notice by a reply that he is no way connected with the building, where the recovery was made and that the building belongs to M/s. Madurai Cotton Merchants Oil Cake Association and the cancellation of his licence would affect his livelihood. Though there are materials available in the proceedings of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that the materials have been seized in the presence of the petitioner and that the petitioner has admitted and signed in the receipts of recovery, the respondent department has passed an order 18/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024of cancellation in a casual manner. All these things exposes the manner, in which, the Labour Welfare Department is functioning. 12. These counterfeit weights and seals have been recovered only by the inspection team, who was on duty in finding out the employment of child labours. Otherwise, the offence would not have seen the light. A complaint has been lodged before the Vilakkuthoon Police Station and it has not been prosecuted for the reasons best known to the officials. Mere recovery is not sufficient in such cases and the officials ought to have found out how many such weights and measures have been manufactured in the past and also were distributed and how many of the weights are under usage. Without any botheration on this aspect, the Department has kept quiet for all these years. After three months from the date of inspection, the licence has been suspended. This Court has allowed the earlier writ petition under the presumption that there was no notice as required under Rule 12(1) and on the date of admission, while the fact is otherwise. 19/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 202413. The learned Government Pleader, who is supposed to defend the case on behalf of the respondent Department has conceded for the disposal without even pointing out the prior notice issued by the Controller of Legal Metrology (Weights & Measures) as required under Rule 12(1). The reply given by the petitioner to the notice was also mentioned in the suspension order.14. This case exposes the manner, in which, the Labour Department is functioning. Though this Court in its order, dated 13.09.2019 has remanded the matter for fresh consideration, by issuing a notice and by providing an opportunity to the petitioner, the Controller of Metrology has kept quiet for nearly three years and allowed the petitioner to continue in the trade. This Court has dealt with another case in WP(MD)No. 22434 of 2023, wherein, a small merchant was prosecuted and was also imposed with a fine of Rs.5000/- that he has refused to give bribe and a prosecution has been initiated as against him. 20/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 202415. Considering the rival submissions made, this Court verified whether any such prosecution has been made by the Department in the past. The Assistant Inspector of Labour, Karaikudi has filed a report indicating the number of prosecutions made by the Department in the district and the same is extracted as under:S.No.Division of the Assistant Labour InspectorNumber of cases pending under the Legal Metrology Act 2009Number of cases pending under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 20111.Sivagangai-22.Tirupattur6-3.Karaikudi114.Devakottai1116. The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 is a Social Welfare Legislation introduced to ensure accuracy, transparency and the standardization of weights and measures, which form the foundation of fair trade. This Act aims to prevent the exploitation of consumers and the unfair enrichment of traders through manipulation or falsification of measurements. The use of counterfeit or inaccurate 21/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024weights and measures leads to adverse social and economic consequences. Such practices affect the ordinary consumers and small purchasers, who are not equipped to detect inaccuracies, and place the honest traders at a disadvantage. Such manipulations also erode the public confidence in commercial transactions.17. The Labour Department has an officer at the level of Assistant Commisisoner of Labour (Inspection) notified as the Controller under the Legal Metrology Act, who is responsible for the supervision, regulation and implementation of the provisions of the Act in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Department also has officers such as the Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology, Assistant Controllers of Legal Metrology and Inspectors of Legal Metrology along with Stamping Inspectors to ensure implementation of this legislation. The dismal number of criminal prosecutions initiated by the Department reflects the manner, in which, this legislation is being implemented, which defeats the very object of the Act. The Department should realise the importance of ensuring that weights 22/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024and measures conform to the standards as prescribed under the Legal Metrology Act and rules. The penal provisions and inspections as provided under the act are vital to ensure that non standardized and counterfeit weights and measures are not circulating in the market.18. The main contention of the petitioner is that the non-stamped weights, non-standard weights and counterfeit seals have been recovered from the building, which belongs to M/s. Madurai Cotton Merchants Oil Cake Association and according to him, it was leased out to one Palpandi. However, the available materials in the criminal case in STC No.5604 of 2019, on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai reveals that these materials have been recovered only from the petitioner, in his presence, through receipt Nos.1019664, 1019665 and 1019666 and the same was admitted and signed by him. The petitioner has also admitted by way of explanation dated 10.05.2019 that the godown was temporarily leased by M/s Mathi & Co. and has not denied that the seized weights and measures were stored in the godown. The 23/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024officers have substantiated the same and the relevant documents have also been marked before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, based on which, the petitioner was found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 44(1)(iii), 44(2), 33, 27, 32 and 45 of the Legal Metrology Act and also imposed with punishment of six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.35,000/-. Though this petitioner has filed criminal appeal No.37 of 2023 before the Court of Sessions, Madurai and the sentence has been suspended, it cannot absolve him from his liability, under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011. This Rule provides the Controller with the authority to suspend and cancel the licence, in case, if the holder has contravened the provisions of the Act or Rules thereunder. It is a regulatory provision meant to ensure adherence to prescribed standards of weights and measures and is distinguished from the penal provisions provided under the Act. The suspension of sentence in the criminal case does not prevent the Controller from conducting an enquiry into the validity of the licence.24/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 202419. Rule 12(2) provides that the Controller can cancel a licence issued under the Legal Metrology Act, after making such inquiry as he deems fit and providing a reasonable opportunity to the holder of the licence. It contemplates an opportunity to this petitioner before passing the final order. In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India [AIR 1966 SC 671], the Hon'ble Supreme Court as held that such reasonable opportunity can be provided by way of making written representation and a personal hearing is not necessary in every situation. The relevant portion is extracted as under:“10.As regards the second contention, I do not think- that the appellant is entitled as of right to a personal hearing. It is no doubt a principle of natural justice that a quasi-judicial tribunal cannot make any decision adverse to a party without giving him an effective opportunity of meeting any relevant allegations against him. Indeed, r. 55 of the Rules, quoted supra, recognize the said principle and states that no order shall be passed against any applicant unless he has been given an opportunity to make his representations against the comments, if any, received from the State Government or other authority. The said opportunity need not necessarily be by personal hearing. It can be by written representation. 25/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024Whether the said opportunity should be by written representation or by personal hearing depends upon the facts of each case and ordinarily it is in the discretion of the tribunal. The facts of the present case disclose that a written representation would effectively meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice.”20. The materials reveal that a show case notice was issued to the petitioner providing details about the violations committed by the petitioner and that his licence is liable to be cancelled for the same. The petitioner has also replied, through his reply, dated 10.07.2023, in which, he relied on the suspension of sentence and contented that the godown does not belong to him. This explanation was considered and rightly rejected by the authority. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition.21. Considering the manner, in which, this issue has been handled by the respondent Department and taking into consideration that the production of non-stamped weights and seals 26/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024creates a ripple effect of negative consequences, fundamentally eroding the foundation of fair commerce and consumer protection in Society, this Court, by exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, suo motu impleads the Secretary to Government, Labour Welfare and Skill Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai, as a party to this proceedings. The learned Special Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the Secretary. This Court expects the Secretary to look into this issue, the manner in which, this matter has been dealt with, find out the reasons for not cancelling the licence from the year 2019, even after the orders of this Court and to take appropriate action as against the erring officials and to preserve the integrity of the Department.22. This Court also directs the Commissioner of Police, Madurai to register a criminal case under the relevant penal provisions for the occurrence that took place on 14.03.2019 and find out the total number of counterfeit seals and other illegal weights 27/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024and measures produced in the godown located in Door No.6, Mamundi Vathiyar Lane, Keelamasi Street, Madurai in the past and the details of distribution of those materials, whether those weights and measures are still in use and file a report before this Court regarding the same.23. With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.For reporting compliance, post on 16.03.2026.28.11.2025NCC:Yes/NoIndex:YesInternet:Yesvrn28/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024ToThe Controller of Legal Metrology (Weights & Measures),Government of Tamil Nadu,DMS Compound,Teynampet,Chennai - 600 006.29/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024B.PUGALENDHI, J.vrn Order made inW.P(MD)No.7888 of 2024 andWMP(MD) No.7175 & 15053 of 202428.11.202530/30