IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 OP.No. 38635 of 2001(Y) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M/S. METROPLUS, 40/3714 B, M.G. ROAD, NEAR PADMA THEATRE, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS PARTNER K.N. ABDUL GAFOOR. 2. K.N. ABDUL GAFOOR, PARTNER, M/S. METROPLUS, 40/3714 B, M.G. ROAD, NEAR PADMA THEATRE, ERNAKULAM. 3. K.N. FAJAR, PARTNER, M/S. METROPLUS, 40/3714 B, M.G. ROAD, NEAR PADMA THEATRE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: O.P. NO. 38635/2001. ----------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED DT. 16-6-1997. EXT.P2 ORDER DT. 29-11-2001. EXT.P3 PARTNERSHIP DEED DT. 16-6-1997. EXT.P4 CERTIFICATE OF SALES TAX REGISTRATION DT. 9-10-1997. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 38635 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are a partnership firm constituted as per Ext. P1 partnership deed dated 16-6-1997 and its partners. The firm conducts business in the name and style of “Metroplus.” They are aggrieved by Ext. P2 order dated 29-11-2001 of the 2nd respondent according sanction to the Assistant Controller (Flying Squad) Legal Metrology, Ernakulam to file a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam against the petitioners for violation of the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The contention of the petitioners is that as is evident from Ext. P2 order itself, the inspection which led to Ext. P2 was conducted in the premises of M/s. Metro Mafatlal, which is a different shop. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence committed by another Firm. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed, wherein the stand taken is that both Metroplus and Metro Mafatlal are actually same entities doing business in the same building. They would also contend that the inspection was actually conducted in the petitioners' shop. I am of opinion that these are all matters requiring evidence, which cannot be taken in writ proceedings . The petitioners can very well adduce evidence in the complaint, if and when filed, to prove their case. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext. P2 at O.P. No. 38635/2001 -: 2 :- this stage. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to take all their contentions in the criminal case, which may be filed pursuant to Ext. P2, this original petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/