IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.15666/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. T. CHETHAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O H. THIMMAIAH OCC:REPAIRER OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES M/S GANGOTHRI ENTERPRISES NO.8A, N. R. LAYOUT, 3RD MAIN ROAD, VIJINAPURA BANGALORE-560 016.
... PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAKSHITHA D. J., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY, LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, 2ND CIRCLE, CORPORATION BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
4. INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY CHAMARAJ PET SUB-DIVISON MOUNT JOY EXTENSION, 3RD MAIN ROAD, OPP:KAMMAVARI KALYANA MANTAP HANUMATHA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 019 5. CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
6. SRI AKKALAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA PROPRIETOR OF M/S S.K. SCALE SERVICE, No.26, VAJARAHALLI, WARD No.198, THALAGHATTAPURA POST, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560062.
7. SRI M. KRISHNAPPA AGE: MAJOR R/AT No.10, GANESHA TEMPLE MAIN ROAD, DODDAKALLASANDRA KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560061.
8. SRI M. GANESH, AGE MAJOR, CONVENER, DALITHA SANGHARSHA SAMITHI, R/AT No.222, VAJARAHALLI, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560062.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5, SRI H. V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6, R7 AND R8) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction, quashing/set aside the order dated 26.3.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-J to the writ petition.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction, directing the Respondent No.2 to renew the repair Licence of the petitioner for the year 2018 and 2019.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Controller of Legal Metrology by an order dated 27.9.2005 under the Standards of weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 issued licence for repair of weighing instruments. The said licence has been renewed from time to time which was valid up to 31.12.2017. Thereafter the petitioner applied for renewal of licence as per Application No.112706 and a check list was provided for renewal of the repairer License wherein the Inspecting Officer had recommended that all the documents are verified and found to be correct. When things stood thus, one Sri Akkalappa and Sri Krishnappa and others made complaints. The 3rd respondent made detailed enquiry with regard to the complaints and came to the conclusion that there is no substance in the complaints made and no action can be taken against the petitioner and submitted detailed report on 18.12.2017.
3. Since his application for renewal of repair licence has not been processed, the petitioner made representation to process the same. A notice was issued by Respondent No.4 calling upon the petitioner to submit bill books for the period from 1.11.2016 to 30.10.2017 and a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner to the said notice stating that bill books have already been furnished and the same are in possession of Respondent NO.4. However, the Respondent No.2 without issuing show cause notice and without providing an opportunity of hearing, suspended the repair licence of the petitioner contrary to the very report dated 18.12.2017 – Annexure - C. Therefore the present writ petition is filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Smt. Rakshitha D.J., learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent suspending licence of the petitioner, is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and the same cannot be sustained. She further contended that on the complaints made by one Sri Akkalappa and others, the 3rd respondent submitted the report. In the report, the 3rd respondent come to conclusion that there is no substance in the said complaints and no action can be taken against the petitioner. Inspite of the same, the respondents proceeded to pass the impugned order as per Annexure-J without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. She would further contend that in Annexure-J – suspension order, there is no stipulation of the suspension period, which is impermissible. She further contended that in the Act or the Rules, there is no such power for suspension of licence of the petitioner, that too without giving notice or affording opportunity of hearing. Therefore, she sought to allow the writ petition .
6. Per contra, Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned AGA submits that on the basis of the new report dated 11.3.2019, the impugned order came to be passed. During the enquiry, the petitioner has participated in the proceedings and sought to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Sri H.V., Devaraju, learned counsel for caveator/Respondent Nos.6 to 8 submits that books maintained by the petitioner for repairing the weighing instruments, have not been produced and sought to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent who is the competent authority issued licence in favour of the petitioner on 27.9.2005 under the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 for repair of weighing instruments/machines. The said licence has been renewed from time to time, which was valid up to 31.12.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for renewal of licence. When things stood thus, one Mr. Akkalappa and others made complaints. The 3rd respondent made detailed enquiry with regard to the complaints and came to the conclusion that there is no substance in the complaints made and submitted the report on 18.12.2017. In the subsequent report, it is recommended for suspension of licence only for the year 2018. Inspite of the same, the respondents proceeded to pass the impugned order of suspension of licence of the petitioner indefinitely without stipulating the period of suspension, that too without notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained and the matter requires reconsideration by the 2nd respondent afresh in accordance with law.
9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 26.3.2019 as per Annexure-J is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-