Andhra Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed by Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, challenging the order holding them liable for violation of Sections 18 and 36, Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (LM Act) and Rules 4 and 6(1)(f), Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011, (LM Rules) for not declaring the size or dimensions of the screen of mobile phones on the packaging, a Single Judge Bench of Subba Reddy Satti, J., set aside the impugned orders, holding that the obligation to declare the dimensions under Section 18, Rules 4 and 6(1)(f) is not an absolute statutory requirement and it arises only where the size of the commodity is relevant and only in respect of commodities where size is the metric, or one of the principal metrics, by reference to which the commodity is transacted in trade. And, the reasoning in the impugned order that screen size may have some bearing on consumer preference or on the pricing of a device across different models of the same brand and therefore, the size of the commodity becomes “relevant” for Rule 6(1)(f), was misplaced and the “screen” of the device cannot be treated as a separate commodity whose size must be declared independently as it is a component of the mobile phone and it is the mobile phone that is the pre-packaged commodity.
Background
Samsung India Electronics Private Limited challenged the order passed by Respondent 2, i.e. Controller of Legal Metrology, Civil Supplies Corporation. Respondent 3, i.e. Inspector, Department of Legal Metrology inspected the premises of Lakshmi Narsimha Mobiles, one of the retailers of petitioner, seizing three packages of “Samsung Galaxy A31” mobile phones, alleging that the packages did not contain a declaration regarding sizes/dimensions of screens, which violates Sections 18 and 36, LM Act and Rules 4 and 6(1)(f), LM Rules. The petitioner made a representation to Respondent 3 to get the seized packages released but Respondent 3 held that the screen size/dimension of mobile phones must be declared under Rules 4 and 6(1)(f), LM Rules and the petitioner thus violated Sections 18 and 36, LM Act.
Assailing the order by Respondent 3, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 50(1), LM Act, before Respondent 2 which was dismissed on 1 October 2020, confirming the order passed by Respondent 3.
The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that Rules 4 and 6(1)(f), LM Rules are not applicable on seized mobile phones as the price of mobile phones depend upon storage capacity, processors, lens, etc. Under Rule 15 LM Rules, the dimensions need not be declared and even if there were violations, Sections 18 and 36, LM Act are not applicable as these provisions only apply if the manufacturer misquotes but not in the case of non-disclosure.
The respondents defended the orders passed by Respondents 2 and 3, stating that the screen size influences every customer, which was not mentioned on the package as mandated under the LM Rules. The Rules do not discriminate between outer and inner form and screen is part of the dimensions.
Issues
-
Whether the impugned order passed by Respondent 2 suffers from any illegality and if not, is the order impugned liable to be set aside?
-
Whether the non-mentioning of the size of commodity (dimensions of the screen of the mobile phone) would amount to violation of Sections 18 and 36, LM Act and Rules 4 and 6(1)(f), LM Rules?
Analysis
The Court noted that Section 18 mandates only the prescribed declarations, Rule 4 requires every pre-packed commodity leaving the manufacturer’s premises to bear the prescribed declaration and Rule 6(1)(f) outlines where the sizes of the commodity contained in the package are relevant. Requirement under Rule 6(1)(f) is conditional and not an absolute rule or mandatory for every commodity, with no blanket requirement that the dimensions of every pre-packaged commodity be declared.
The Court referred to Rules 14 and 15, LM Rules and stated that Rule 15 requires a declaration of dimensions and weight only “where the dimensions and weight, or combination thereof, of a commodity has or have a relationship to the price of that commodity”. Thus, the provisions demonstrate that the obligation to declare the dimensions is not an absolute statutory requirement and it arises only where the size of the commodity is relevant, i.e. where size is the metric, or one of the principal metrics, by reference to which the commodity is transacted in trade.
The Court further stated that this qualifying expression must be given full effect and that a rule-making authority is not presumed to use words without purpose, and a literal interpretation of provisions must be taken.
The Court examined Rule 14 and observed that the expression “similar other commodities” needs to be construed on the settled principle of ejusdem generis, meaning that where a statutory provision enumerates specific items followed by a general residuary expression, the general words take color from the specific words preceding them and must be confined to things of the same type, provided that type is not itself exhausted by the enumeration, and there is no contrary legislative intent. Referring to the Supreme Court ruling upon ejusdem generis rule in Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, Govt. of Tripura, (1972) 2 SCC 442, the Court stated that the items specifically enumerated in Rule 14 form a species i.e. articles whose utility, value and manner of sale are closely tied to their dimensions. Thus, the general term “similar other commodities” must be confined to articles sharing that same defining characteristic and cannot be stretched to embrace commodities whose value and marketability bear no relationship to physical measurement. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench’s formulation of the essential conditions for the ejusdem generis doctrine to apply, as laid down in Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, Govt. of Tripura, (1972) 2 SCC 442: (i) the statute contains an enumeration of specific words; (ii) the subjects of the enumeration constitute a class or category; (iii) that class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration; (iv) the general term follows the enumeration; and (v) there is no indication of a different legislative intent. Applying this five-part test, the Court held that the items specifically enumerated in Rule 14 form a species, namely, articles whose utility, value and manner of sale are closely tied to their dimensions.
The Court opined that a mobile phone is not a commodity of that description. It is sold by reference to its brand, model, processor, memory, camera, other functional specifications and by its declared retail price, not by reference to its physical dimensions. Essentially every specification of a mobile phone may be said to influence purchase decisions and pricing but that does not render each such specification a “relevant” detail required to be declared under Rule 6(1)(f).
To examine the applicability of Rule 6(1)(f), the Court formulated a test to adjudge the “relevance” of size. It went on stating that dimensions are “relevant” and must be declared only where following conditions are met —
-
the commodity is, by trade practice, transacted or identified by reference to its physical dimensions,
-
the dimensions bear a direct and proximate relationship to price, as contemplated by Rule 15, and
-
an ordinary prudent purchaser would buy principally, not merely incidentally, on that basis.
The Court held that if any of the conditions are absent, Rule 6(1)(f) will not be attracted and there will be no penal consequences under Sections 18 and 36, LM Act.
Applying the same to a cell phone, an ordinary prudent man purchases a cell phone looking at the brand, model number, storage capacity such as 128 GB, 256 GB, 512 GB, RAM, IMEI, MRP, manufacturer’s details, etc. The physical dimensions (length × width × thickness) are generally not the basis on which the commodity is identified, sold or valued.
Thus, the Court held that the reasoning in the impugned order that screen size may have some bearing on consumer preference or on the pricing of a device across different models of the same brand and therefore, the size of the commodity becomes “relevant” for Rule 6(1)(f), was misplaced. Thus, the “screen” of the device cannot be treated as a separate commodity whose size must be declared independently as it is a component of the mobile phone and it is the mobile phone that is the pre-packaged commodity contemplated by the Rules.
The Court further observed that Section 18 obligates only such declarations “as may be prescribed” and the Rules, being delegated legislation under Section 52, cannot travel beyond the parent statute. Referring to multiple Supreme Court judgments and the principle that penal provisions must receive strict construction, and that where two constructions are reasonably possible, the one favouring the subject is to be preferred, the Court opined that a rule must conform to its parent statute and penal provisions must, in any event, be strictly construed in favour of the subject. Thus, if the respondent’s construction is applied, every specification of every manufactured article would become a mandatory declaration which neither Section 18 nor the Rules provide for.
On the basis of Tolaram Relumal v. State of Bombay, (1954) 1 SCC 961 and Balaji Traders v. State of U.P., (2025) 10 SCC 638, the Court noted that if two possible constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the court must lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes penalty.
Decision
The Court held that it is impermissible for the authority to stretch the language of a penal provision, however beneficent its object, beyond its fair and ordinary meaning and that where two reasonable constructions are open, the construction favouring the person proceeded against must prevail. A penal provision must be so construed that no case is held to fall within it unless it falls within the plain and reasonable meaning of the words used and that hardship to the enforcing authority cannot enlarge that meaning.
Therefore, the Court held that the invocation of Sections 18 and 36 read with Rules 4 and 6(1)(f), against the Petitioner was not sustainable, setting aside the impugned order and the proceedings of Respondents 2 and 3.
[Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd. v. State of A.P., 2026 SCC OnLine AP 2709, decided on 22-7-2026]
Judgment Authored By: Justice Subba Reddy Satti
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellants: Varun Byreddy
For Respondents: P.Venkata Sai Krishna
