REGISTERED OFFICE v. THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE WP Nos.47889 – 47890 of 2012 (GM - RES) BETWEEN : 1 KENNAMETAL INDIA LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE, 8/9TH MILE, NAGASANDRA, OFF TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 073 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER- LEGAL & COMPANY SECRETARY SRI KUNDAN K LAL 2 M/S INSPIRON ENTERPRISE SHOP NO.6, LAKSHMIKRUPA, ANGOL ROAD, UDYAM BAGH, BELGAUM- 590 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX, SMT YOGINI NAIK. PETITIONERS (By Sri VISHWANATH R HEGDE, ADV.) AND : 1 THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI- 110 001 2 2 THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY, NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 3 THE INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY, BELGAUM SUB DIVISION-1, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, SADASHIVA NAGAR, BELGAUM- 590 001. RESPONDENTS (By Sri KESHAVA REDDY, AGA) THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE LEGAL METROLOGY ACT 2009 AND LEGAL METROLOGY [PACKAGED COMMODITIES] RULES 2011 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SUBJECT GOODS, QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 14.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEURE-A, QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 19.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEURE-F, STRIKE DOWN THE DEFINITIONS OF "INDUSTRIAL CONSUMER" AND "INSTITUTIONAL CONSUMER" IN RULE 3 OF THE LEGAL METROLOGY [PACKAGED COMMODITIES] RULES 2011 AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE SCHEME OF THE LEGAL METROLOGY ACT 2009 AD INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE RULES. These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing, the Court passed the following: PC: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners in these writ petitions basically challenge the notice dated 14.6.2012 issued under Section 18 of the Legal 3 Metrology Act, 2009 and the order dated 19.11.2012 passed in pursuant of the order of this Court dated 16.7.2012 in WP Nos.24058-59/2012. There is no dispute that the order under Section 18 is appealable under Section 50 of the said Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners therefore prays for liberty to file an appeal keeping the prayer – (iv) in the writ petitions open to be made in further proceedings if the circumstances so demand. Prayer (iv) in the writ petition reads thus: “(iv) strike down the definitions of “industrial consumer” and “institutional consumer” in Rule 3 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 as being contrary to the scheme of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and inconsistent with other provisions of the Rules.”

The learned Additional Government Advocate for the State has no objection for disposing of these petitions with the liberty as prayed for by the petitioners. In the circumstances, I dispose of these writ petitions for the following: ORDER (i) It is open to the petitioners to file an appeal under Section 50 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 within a period of two weeks from today. If any such appeal is filed by the petitioners, the Appellate Authority shall deal with the same on merits in accordance with law 4 by condoning the delay, if any, caused in filing the appeal. It is also open to the petitioners to seek appropriate interim relief pending their appeal that may be filed in pursuance of this order. If such an application is filed, the Appellate Authority shall deal with the application expeditiously. (ii) Insofar as the prayer (iv) is concerned, all contentions of the petitioners in respect thereof are kept open to be considered and decided in appropriate proceedings. Sd/- JUDGE bkm.