IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22877 of 2009(D)
1. PRIYA C.A., D/O.ANTONY,
... Petitioner
2. PRADEEP ANTONY, RESIDING DO.
Vs
1. SENIOR INSPECTOR, LEGAL METROLOGY(VT)
... Respondent
2. THE CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF
4. C.L.ANTONY, S/O.LONAPPAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.ANIL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :12/08/2009
O R D E R
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/