Andhra Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J., referred to Section 23(2) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (‘the Act’) and Rule 11(7) of Andhra Pradesh Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011 (‘2011 Rules’) and opined that it was clear that Controller of Legal Metrology, Respondent 2 was vested with powers to issue license and also to fix the jurisdiction of a license. The Court opined that in the present case, the impugned license granted in favour of the petitioner, only to the extent of Guntur District, was in accordance with the aforesaid provisions. Thus, the Court opined that the notification dated 07-05-2015 and proceedings 09-06-2016, were not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and did not infringe the petitioner’s fundamental to carry on his business in a particular District.
Background
In an instant case, Bharath Weighing Scales, the petitioner stated that it obtained license from Respondent 2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of the license for all renewal of the license for all over the State of Andhra Pradesh, however, Respondent 2 granted license for the period from 15-02-2022 to 31-12-2022 only to the extent of Guntur District.
Thus, the petitioner challenged imposition of the condition limiting the operation of the petitioner’s repair work only to Guntur District.
The respondent contended that Department of Legal Metrology had renewed the petitioner’s license from time to time, but vide Gazette Notification dated 07-05-2015 and proceedings 09-06-2016, the Controller of Legal Metrology, Andhra Pradesh limited the repairers territorial jurisdiction to one district where the workshop was located, keeping in view of the increasing number of establishments and enhanced volume of work.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that Respondent 2 issued license dated 09-02-2022, granting license to the petitioner to repair weights, measures, weighting and measuring instructions with jurisdiction to operate his business to the extent of entire Guntur District only, because the petitioner had established all the required laboratory, workshop at Guntur District. Therefore, the Court opined that the restriction imposed in the license was in accordance with 2011 Rules.
The Court referred to Section 23(2) of the Act and Rule 11(7) of 2011 Rules and opined that it was clear that Controller of Legal Metrology, Respondent 2 was vested with powers to issue license and also, fixed the jurisdiction of a license. Therefore, in the present case, the impugned license granted in favour of the petitioner was in accordance with the aforesaid provisions.
The Court further opined that undisputedly, the Controller of Legal Metrology was the competent authority for granting general/special directions and license with conditions adhering to the provisions under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. Further, when the license was granted with conditions by the Controller, in accordance with the Rules, the licensee should abide by such conditions.
Thus, the Court opined that the notification dated 07-05-2015 and proceedings 09-06-2016, were not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and did not infringe the petitioner’s fundamental to carry on his business in a particular District.
[Bharat Weighing Scales v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 312, Order dated 11-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: M. Pitchaiah, Advocate;
Buy Constitution of India HERE
