IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22877 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. PRIYA C.A., D/O.ANTONY, CHITHALAN HOUSE, KORATTY SOUTH P.O., TRICHUR. 2. PRADEEP ANTONY, RESIDING DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. SENIOR INSPECTOR, LEGAL METROLOGY(VT) ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. C.L.ANTONY, S/O.LONAPPAN, CHITHALAN HOUSE, KORATTY SOUTH P.O., TRICHUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: app/- V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 22877 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of August 2009. JUDGMENT The first petitioner is the sister of the second petitioner and the 4th respondent is their father. The first petitioner is a registered owner of a tanker lorry bearing registration No. KL- 45/3555 and the second petitioner is a registered owner of another tanker lorry bearing registration No.KL-45/1112. According to the petitioners, they have sold their vehicles to their father under Exts.P1 and P2 agreements. 2. On 12.11.2008, the first respondent inspected both vehicles at the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Aviation Fueling Station at Nedumbassery. It seems that a cylindrical clandestine tank was fitted inside the first compartment of each tanker lorry. Exts. P3 and P4 communications were therefore issued by the first respondent stating that the vehicles are involved in an offence under Section 37(1)(vii) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. The petitioners were asked to furnish the details mentioned therein. Accordingly, they W.P.(C). No. 22877 OF 2009 2 issued reply stating that the vehicles were sold to the 4th respondent by an agreement dated 19.09.2008 and the vehicles were not in their possession at the time of inspection on 12.11.2008. They are aggrieved by an order passed by the second respondent, issuing an authorization to the Senior Inspector, Legal Metrolody Department to file a complaint against the petitioners for offences under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act. 3. I heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Ext.P5 is only an authorization issued for prosecuting the petitioners under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act. Obviously, petitioners would be in a position to take up such defences as are available to them before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate as and when the complaint is filed. The statute does not contemplate a detailed perusal of the defence which the petitioners may have, at the stage at which the Controller of Legal Metrology issues an authorization under Section 63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures W.P.(C). No. 22877 OF 2009 3 (Enforcement) Act 1985. It is possible that the alleged validity of the authorization could be set up as one of the defences by the accused before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of reserving to the petitioners the liberty to take up such contentions as are available to them in accordance with law in relation to Ext.P5 as well, as and when prosecution is launched against them on the strength of Ext.P5. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/