IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 37928 of 2014 BETWEEN Sunil Kumar AND ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. The present wit petition is filed contending that on 20.12.2013, the Legal Metrology Department represented by respondent Nos.2 to 5 conducted inspection of the various jewellery shops including the petitioner’s shop and seized the electronic weighing machine as well as the jewellery. The panchanama case No.204/W&M/13-14, was accordingly reported to XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Secunderabad. However, the S.T.C. number is not at yet allotted. Petitioner states he has made several representations, dated 15.09.2014 and subsequent thereto, requested respondent Nos.2 to 5 to consider his request for compounding in terms of Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act. The present writ petition is, therefore, filed alleging that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are neither following the procedure prescribed under the Act nor are compounding the offences as per the request of the petitioner and not returning the seized goods to the petitioner. Petitioner states that so far as the weighing machine is considered, the compounding fee of Rs.10,000/- was already collected and weighing machine was already returned to him. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is only to the extent of seized gold jewellery.
3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are willing to consider and compound the offence in terms of Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, if the petitioner approaches by making a specific request in that regard.
4. In view of the said stand of respondent Nso.2 to 5, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make specific representation to the concerned authorities seeking compounding of the offence and if such a request is made, the competent authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders including orders for release of the seized goods expeditiously.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 11, 2014 Note:
Furnish copy by tomorrow.
{B/o} LMV