THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT PETITION No. 30154 OF 2011 DATED:15.11.2011 Between: The Weights and Measures Licence Holder’s Association, D.No. 44-23- 10/1, Masseedu Veedhi, Rly. New Colony, Visakhapatnam- 530 016, rep., by its General Secretary, Veluri Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Veluri Venkata Satyanarayana Rao, aged about 40 years, Hindu, male, R/o Flat No.T-2, Anusha Residency, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam - 530024 … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by the Commissioner & Ex- Officio Secretary to Government and Commissioner Consumer Affairs, Food and Agriculture & Civil Supplies and Legal Metrology, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT PETITION No. 30154 OF 2011 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The petitioner is an association of weights and measures licence holders. 2. Originally, under the Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1976 and the rules framed thereunder by the State of Andhra Pradesh, the licence fee structure for manufacturers, repairers and for dealers as licence fee was fixed. This fee structure continued when a fresh enactment came about in 1985. 3. Finally, the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 which is a central act was enacted. In accordance with the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, draft rules were prepared and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 29-11-2010 for suggestions and objections from persons likely to be affected thereby. 4. It is candidly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the members of the association raised any objection. 5. Under those circumstances, the State of Andhra Pradesh promulgated the Andhra Pradesh Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011 and fixed the fee structure thereunder. 6. The present petition has been filed challenging the quantum of licence fee. It is submitted that the licence fee is exorbitant and that there is no reason to change the licence fee from what it was in 1976 or in 1985. 7. We are not at all in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner. There has been a passage of more than 30 years and if the State of Andhra Pradesh decides to revise the licence fee, it is fully entitled to do so, if it is in accordance with law. In the present case, suggestions and objections were invited from all the concerned including the petitioner by publication in the gazette, but there was no objection raised by the petitioner. It is now too late in the day for the petitioner to raise an objection with regard to the quantum of licence fee. 8. It is then submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the State of Andhra Pradesh is the only state that has framed rules under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. He says that all other states are following the model rules framed by the Central Government. 9. While that may be so, since the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 permits that State of Andhra Pradesh to frame its own rules, no objection can be raised in this regard merely because no other state has framed the rules under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. 10. We find no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 15-11-2011 ks