sk 1 wp6589.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6589 OF 2011 Grant Medical Foundation & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharshtra & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.M.S.Karnik for the petitioners. Ms M.P.Thakur, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 12, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the appellate order dated 27.7.2011 passed by the Controller of Legal Metrology, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the notice dated 9.11.2010 issued by the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Pune-1 Division, came to be rejected. sk 2 wp6589.11 3. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that vide notice dated 9.11.2010, the petitioners were informed that the packaged commodities found in the medical stores run by the petitioners foundation violated the provisions of section 39 of the Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976 read with rule 23(1) of the Rules of 1977. It is contended that the petitioners were called upon to submit their reply within a period of ten days after receipt of the notice/letter. It is contended that the petitioners did submit their reply to the said show cause notice dated 9.11.2010 within the stipulated period, however, the same was not taken into consideration before passing the impugned order. 4. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in reply/communication dated 20.11.2010, the petitioners have pointed out that they have not committed any offence under any provisions of the Act. They are not the manufacturers or distributors of the products mentioned in the said notice. The petitioners also objected to the statement made by the respondent no.1 in the notice that the packages were found in possession of the Grant Medical Foundation’s Medical Stores and, therefore, there was no question of compounding the offence. The counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contended that the appellate authority without taking into consideration the reply of the petitioner as sk 3 wp6589.11 well as the defence of the petitioners passed the impugned order rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners and, hence, the same is unsustainable in law. 5. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3, on the other hand, has supported the issuance of the notice dated 9.11.2010 by the Inspector of Legal Metrology as well as the appellate order dated 27.7.2011. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners had approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing a Writ Petition which was disposed of by this Court by directing the appellate authority to grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 6. Having considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and having perused the impugned order, it is evident that the petitioners did not produce any evidence or material before the appellate authority to demonstrate that the petitioners submitted their reply to the show cause notice dated 9.11.2010. It is also not in dispute that the packages were seized from the petitioners which were kept for sale in their premises. The petitioners were unable to point out to us any specific ground in the Memo of Appeal to show there was no violation of the provisions of section 39 of the Act mentioned in the notice dated sk 4 wp6589.11 9.11.2010. In the absence thereof, it is very difficult to appreciate the defence of the petitioners. The appellate authority, therefore, in the concluding paragraph of the order has observed thus:- “Appellant pleaded that they have replied to the notice issued by Inspector of Legal Metrology, Pune-1, Division, but could not produce any evidence to that effect. Further it is pleaded that they are not manufactures or distributors of the seized packages and hence they have not committed any offence. However the packages seized from appellant were kept for sale in their premises. License to sale these products in the name of appellant is on record. Hence this argument can not be accepted since appellant have clearly violated the provisions of section 39 of The Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976 and Section 33 of The Standards of Weights and Measures (E) Act 1985 read with Rule 23(1) of The Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Comm.) Rules 1977. sk 5 wp6589.11 Hence I pass the following order. ORDER 1. The Appeal is rejected. 2. If appellant applies for compounding of this offence within 20 days from receipt of this order, it shall be considered and processed. 3. If appellant does not apply for compounding of this offence within 20 days from receipt of this order, Inspector of Legal Metrology Pune-1 Division shall submit the case in the appropriate court of law.” 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned is just and proper, needs no interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. 8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that the present order may be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader objected to the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Since the ad-interim order of status quo is in existence for a long time, we continue the same for a period of sk 6 wp6589.11 two weeks and the same shall cease to operate automatically on expiry of the last day of the second week. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)