The writ petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction to the second respondent to enforce provisions under Sections 9, 22 and 24 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), in the case of weights and measures manufactured by the 5th respondent, who is alleged to be the manufacturer of electronic weighing machines. It is the case of the petitioner that the jewelleries in the State, the electronic scales manufactured by the 5th respondent is widely used and these scales are not even inspected by the second respondent. 2. On behalf of the second respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed before this Court. It is denied that the 5th respondent has been favoured by the officials attached to the second respondent. It is also stated that the enforcement officials in the State are conducting frequent inspections and surprise inspection in almost all jeweleries in the State and registering cases where any violation of the particular law is W.P.(C) No.36573 of 2009 2 found. It is also stated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, a particular instance of violation and action taken thereon, as follows:
“By this time the Assistant Controller (FS) Malappuram has inspected M/s. Majestic Jewellers, Thazhappalam, Thirur and found that they were in use of non-standards electronic balances manufactured by the 5th respondent and therefore, registered a case against the offenders for violations of the relevant provisions of the law.”
4. The learned Government pleader also pointed out that on 29.5.2014 surprise inspections were carried out by the officials to check any malpractice and wherever malpractice is found, action has been initiated against the offenders.
5. In view of the counter affidavit and also based on the submission of the learned Government Pleader, I find no need to grant any relief to the petitioner as the Government is vigilant in taking action against the malpractices. Therefore, nothing further survives in this writ petition for granting any relief to the petitioner.
W.P.(C) No.36573 of 2009 3 Accordingly, the writ petition is closed recording the above submission and in view of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln