Inspection & Testing Procedure Under Legal Metrology Rules Mandatory Before Action Against Manufacturer: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that the inspection and testing procedure prescribed under Rules 19 and 21 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 are mandatory in nature before proceeding against the manufacturer. Rule 19 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 provides for inspection of quantity and error in packages at the premises of the manufacturer...
The Allahabad High Court has held that the inspection and testing procedure prescribed under Rules 19 and 21 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 are mandatory in nature before proceeding against the manufacturer.
Rule 19 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 provides for inspection of quantity and error in packages at the premises of the manufacturer or packer.
An authorized person under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 shall examine the packages and carry out tests at the premises of the manufacturer or where the manufacturer is not the packer, of the packer by taking samples as per the prescribed rules.
Rule 21 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 provides for inspection of quantity and error in packages at the premises of the wholesale dealer ore retailer dealer. Under this provision, no inspection/ testing can be carried out without a complaint 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, there is suspected case of tampering with the goods or the declaration on the package does not match the goods.
Justice Alok Mathur held,
“The pre-conditions given in Rules 19 and 21 of the Rules, 2011 are mandatory in nature and have been made with a view to protect the manufacturer and retailer and to ensure that action is taken only against the persons who are guilty of violating the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009.”
Petitioner Pidilite is the manufacturer of "M-Seal Phataphat". Counsel for Pidilite submitted that the said product contains two parts in the same packaging: Resin and Hardener. The product is available in different weights like 12, 15, 25 grams and 1 Kg and each comprises of two separate packages within the main package having equal quantity of resin base and hardener.
It was submitted that Senior Inspector of Legal Metrology Department, Jhansi inspected M/s Abhilabh Iron Store, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi in the presence of proprietor of the retailer and allegedly found that the product manufactured by the petitioner company namely "M-Seal Phataphat" had zero resin base while the packaging mentioned net weight 25gm (12.5gm resin and 12.5gm hardener) (maximum retail price Rs.10 and having manufacturing date 4/2013). Considering this violative of Rule 18(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 proceedings were initiated against the manufacturer.
On 14.08.2013, notice was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, reply was filed stating that Rule 21 was not followed while conducting inspection at the shop of the retailer.
Rejecting the reply, proceedings were said to be initiated against the manufacturer and not the retailer. Appeal against the said order was rejected.
Accordingly, petitioner approached the High Court.
Perusing the Rules, the Court observed,
“.. it is noticed that it is only in three conditions that the premises of the wholesale dealer or retailer dealer may be inspected and the condition prior to inspection is that a complaint is received by the Director or Controller of any Legal Metrology Officer who 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 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.”
The Court observed that none of the pre-conditions stated under Rule 21 was followed and there was no statement in the counter affidavit regarding a complaint against the retailer. It noted that the Officer of the Legal Metrology Department had not recorded any finding as to tampering of package or declaration on the package being wrong.
It held that once discrepancy in weight was found, the Officer ought to have brought it to the knowledge of Director of the Metrology Department, who, under Rule 21, would have conducted inquiry and thereafter passed appropriate orders.
The Court observed that nothing was on record to demonstrate how the resin was underweight, there were no independent witnesses, and statement of the shop owner was not recorded by any authority.
Noting that both orders suffered from non-application of mind, the Court set aside the orders.
Case Title: Pidilite Industries Ltd. Thru Spl.Attorney Sri Sachin Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Legal Metrology Andor 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 423
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 423
Counsel for Petitioner: Gaurav Mehrotra, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Shhreiya Agarwal